On the one side, Eric Felisbret maintains it is art: Legal Venues Celebrate Graffiti as an Art-Form.
On the other side, Heather MacDonald maintains graffiti is always vandalism: Graffiti is Always Vandalism
What do you think? Is graffiti art, or is graffiti vandalism?
At least two paragraphs! Express your point of view clearly, refer to classmates' perspectives, and cite textual evidence (and your source!).
By the way, whether you decide it is vandalism or art, isn't that last one painted onto the street to look 3-D COOL?!?!
Click on the photos to enlarge them. :)
While graffiti provides a way to express yourself, not all graffiti is art. Graffiti is easy to speak about, but not so easy to deal with. It is also very influential, and not always appropriate. I believe that graffiti is a form of vandalism.
ReplyDeleteMs. MacDonald's article provides information on hypocritical graffiti supporters: "No institution that has celebrated graffiti in recent years — like the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles or the Museum of the City of New York — would allow its own premises to be defaced for even one minute." As popular attraction, graffiti on the buildings would not be professional. This concept also applies to individual graffiti supporters: " Graffiti is something that one celebrates, if one is juvenile enough to do so, when it shows up on someone else’s property but never on one’s own." This is what I mentioned before: Graffiti is easy to talk about, when it does not apply to you. Many graffiti artists do not get permission for vandalizing private property. This offense is similar to trespassing, as it involves violating private property.
Graffiti is vandalism: "By definition it is committed without permission on another person's property, in an adolescent display of entitlement." The very definition of graffiti includes the lack of permission. Graffiti usually influences people, and not always in a good way: "A 2008 study from the Netherlands has shown that physical disorder and vandalism have a contagious effect." If graffiti is not considered a crime, what else will be overlooked? When people realize that they can get away with something, nothing will stop them from trying something else.
I do believe that creative expression is important, but graffiti is not the way to show it. Graffiti artists usually don't get permission to use the canvases that they do. Not all graffiti is appropriate, and not considering it as a crime sends the wrong message into the world. A few people expressing themselves has been turned into something much bigger.
Some graffiti is beautiful, so complex and detailed. While some others are a bunch of scrambled letters on the side of a train. Many people may disagree with my opinion, but I think graffiti is a form of art.
ReplyDeleteOne reason that I think graffiti is a form of art is because it is allowed for certain people. "If you do not have permission to write or paint, it is a crime" (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/11/when-does-graffiti-become-art/legal-venues-celebrate-graffiti-as-an-art-form). Its as simple as asking a question to be able to write on certain things. To many people, graffiti (a.k.a tagging) is a way to represent their artistic side. You wouldn't want someone to deprive you of your way of expression, would you?
Another reason I think graffiti is artwork is just plainly because its cool. For example the last picture that Ms. Mansour used for her example pictures is gorgeous. Its so cool how the artist give it that 3-D look. And the third picture is adorable. The artist used the wall as the face of the duck and the block of wood (I think) as the bill showing the artists creativity. Although some graffiti is bad, I find the pretty graffiti deep and detailed.
Graffiti can be nice, as Maile said, but most of it is just scrambled letters on buildings and trains. I agree that some graffiti is art but most of it is not. The person who painted the graffiti did not have permission which makes it vandalism. Although some forms of graffiti may be beautiful but people shouldnt go around vandalizing peoples property.For example, "If you do not have permission to write or paint, it is a crime" (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/11/when-does-graffiti-become-art/legal-venues-celebrate-graffiti-as-an-art-form).
ReplyDeleteAlthough some graffiti may be cool, its not okay. Like Maile said, the picture Mrs. Mansour used was so cool, but I disagree with the fact that it was okay. Im almost 100% positive that no one gave them permission to do that... so again its vandalism, which is not against the law. Therefore vandalism ,although it can be pretty, is not a form of art.
I think graffiti is art. I think this because graffiti isn't vandalism until you do something bad to the product. For example, in the show "red band society" a kid named dash expresses his feelings by making graffiti . He does it in a way that it is meant to be art. Graffiti is vandalism if you make it vandalism. If your point is to hurt the property, then that is vandalism.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Eric's statement "it isn't vandalism if you asked permission" (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/11/when-does-graffiti-become-art/legal-venues-celebrate-graffiti-as-an-art-form), some graffiti was given permission. Graffiti is a way to express yourself. It is art until you get to the point where you don't have permission. I believe graffiti is art.
I think that graffiti is vandalism when you are doing it to a very important or well known landmark or on something that is seen or noticed everyday. They should also charged as a crime when they display gang signs or inappropriate pictures. Some graffiti is a work of art, something that the average person could do. For example, on the 4th picture the whole floor is covered in paint and it looks very realistic. It must have taken the artist lots of time to do this and he had to have been spotted at least once. If it really was a crime, it would be stopped immediately. Like Eric's statement there are hired artists who basically graffiti the walls to make murals. Honestly, if graffiti was pure art instead of just gang signs, it should be allowed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mailee because if graffiti artists weren't allowed to express their feelings to the public, then there would be even more rebellion. The stricter a person becomes, the more rebellion is going to happen. I also adree with Kylie P. because Graffiti expresses a person's feelings, something you can't do with pen and paper.
-Adrian J.
I think that graffiti is art because you can have permission that do it. Graffiti being legal or not all boils down to do you have permission? The 5Pointz had legal graffiti on it. It was still whitewashed because some people wanted it gone. The graffiti, if you looked at the pictures, was amazing, and was done legally, but still thought of as vandalism.Graffiti is a wonderful art and it should be considered an art. Plus, IT LOOKS AMAZING AND I LIKE THE 3-D ONE!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, some people say graffiti is always going to be considered as vandalism. These people are wrong because its not if they have permission. One thing that Heather did not understand was that they don't tag houses unless they will be seen by a lot of people. Also, who tags a house? The pieces of graffiti she shows in the pictures aren't even considered good graffiti. The pictures just show people's tags. She needs to look at some better graffiti.
To understand wether graffiti is an art-form, we need to understand the true laws. On one hand, graffiti could be done legally by getting permission. On the other hand, graffiti could happen illegally by not getting permission on paint on an area. to some, graffiti is an art-form, but for others it is vandalism. Overall, in my opinion if graffiti is done legally it is not vandalism.
ReplyDeleteBoth articles have strong evidence, but Heather MacDonald is missing the fact that it can be done legally. Heather tries to convince the readers it is graffiti by showing the illegal and terrible spray paint work. In other cases, graffiti could also look ver nice and done legally in some cases. In Eric Felisbret article, graffiti is done to decorate a building legally with permission. I would also have to agree with Pierce saying how IT LOOKS AMAZING AND I LIKE THE 3-D ONE!!!!!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think it is art just like Kylie said. Sure graffiti isn't always beautiful but it can be. I don't think its illegal if you get permission. Just like Eric said, "it isn't vandalism if you have permission." However, without permission it can still be vandalism. Nobody ever said that even illegal graffiti can't be art. It can still appeal to the eye even if it is done without obeying the law.
ReplyDeleteI think that if you have permission it is really nice. But even if it isn't legal, it doen't mean that it can't be appealing. Some graffiti is art while others aren't. I also think it should be a crime if it displays inappropriate images in public. It should also be a crime if it done on something that is a historical monument or personal property. If it is done on those then it will not be appealing in my eyes anymore.
-Asha A.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that graffiti is art most of the time. Like Kylie P said, graffiti is only vandalism when you mean for it to be vandalism. Graffiti can be beautiful art or like Mailee said, a bunch of scrambled letters. Graffiti is only determined on how you want it to look like. Vandalism graffiti is something done when nobody is watching, or at night, whereas the graffiti shown in the pictures that Ms.Mansour put is usually done when people are watching and admiring the beautiful work.
ReplyDeleteGraffiti is only a matter of expressing something, like your anger or your skills. Although many think all graffiti is vandalism, it isn't all the time. When someone does graffiti in a nice artistic way, people don't care because it's like decorating a street or sidewalk or something while the vandalism type of graffiti to most people is bad and automatically seems like they did it on purpose to make something look pretty ugly. There is a big difference between art graffiti and vandalism graffiti. One is beautiful and the other one isn't. We all have our own opinions but mine is that graffiti is not always vandalism.
I think that graffiti is art, unless people make it so it's vandalism. There is a difference between the bad graffiti and the bad one. Graffiti that makes a wall look so much better, almost like a mural, is truly art, but some random signature, on a train is not. Art is also presented and is not done in secret, as much of the scrambled graffiti is not. Graffiti is also considered art, when it's easily seen, and it is admired, and it adds to the place.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, most graffiti is actually gang signs, and something of the sort, like Adrian said. This just makes people consistently think that graffiti is bad, and should be painted over, and that it should be illegal. This makes people think that cool graffiti, like the 3-D one should be gone, which it should not. It adds a lot to the place, and it makes the place even more popular. Did you check out the cool graffiti? Yeah, we should go check it out, and maybe grab a bite to eat.
-Julian M.
I think that graffiti is an art-form. But it can go on either side, good or bad. Graffiti is bad when people make it just to vandalize. However, its fine when people do it with permission and puts all their heart into it. Some graffiti is very detailed and you can tell when someone has a passion for art. You can also tell when someone uses it for no purpose.
ReplyDeleteHere, Eric Felisbret states,"There are two types of graffiti: “bombing,” which is volume-based, with writers aiming to tag as many places as possible, and there is “burning,” which is an artistic enterprise." Many people think that all graffiti is vandalism. But I agree with Eric because artists should be able to freely make art if they have the permission to. When graffiti is granted, it is amazing type of art. Graffiti isn't illegal if you have permission. Graffiti is a way to express the artist in you. As some people think, I think graffiti is an amazing art-form.
-Eliza A.
( By the way, the last 3-D picture is AWESOME!! )
I think graffiti can be art, unless they make it to be vandalism.Like if someone purposely graffiti's something then its vandalism, but if someone tries to make it art then it's ok. Like Eliza said it can go either way. "There are two types of graffiti: “bombing,” which is volume-based, with writers aiming to tag as many places as possible, and there is “burning,” which is an artistic enterprise." As the article said there are two types of graffiti "bombing" and "burning".
ReplyDeleteLike some graffiti's they try to make it really cool like the one Mrs. Mansour showed us they created a 3d effect, and it was really cool. However, you wouldn't want scrambled words and letters on the side of a building would you?
I think graffiti is art. It make a place look more unique and special. "It has been exhibited in museums and art galleries across the world since its earliest stages" (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/11/when-does-graffiti-become-art/legal-venues-celebrate-graffiti-as-an-art-form). Graffiti has been shown as art, even when it first started. Graffiti turns something plain into something creative.
ReplyDeleteLots of places have graffiti on it. For example, trains, subways, buildings, and sidewalks have graffiti. "For almost 20 years, from 1971 to 1989, New York City subway trains served as the ideal canvas" (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/11/when-does-graffiti-become-art/legal-venues-celebrate-graffiti-as-an-art-form). Graffiti should be seen as an art form. It helps the artists' express themselves in a new way.
Graffiti in its essence is art- any type of graffiti is art. Like Julian said, it becomes both an art and vandalism when the artist chooses to become a criminal, and chooses to discard the law.
ReplyDeleteNow, one argument is that you wouldn't want your house to be vandalized- but it's clear that "if you don't have permission to write or paint, it's a crime" ("Legal Venues Celebrate Graffiti as an Art Form"). So when allowed, graffiti is an art, and when it's a crime, it is vandalism. Besides, if you can up these artists who want freedom, soon there will be a rising of 'graffiti artist rebels'. Then the problem becomes even more problematic.
A better solution is the freedom that the artists long for: "Legal venues for the art form are great- they allow artists to perfect their work..." (Legal Venues Celebrate Graffiti as an Art Form). When the artist is satisfied, the world will experience art like no other. Plus, the more time received, the more care put into the work. See the third picture for example. That would have never happened without time, permission, and lots of love.
In conclusion, the classification of the graffiti depends solely on the mind of the artist. Without permission, and when you are defacing property, it is vandalism and a crime. But with a legal venue, time, and effort, the term 'graffiti' becomes art, and the art enhances the surroundings.
Cheers,
Sriha S. =^.^=
I think graffiti is an art form and it should be and art form because it is special and it is very unique. But i think it shouldn't be an art form if people start to do it just to vandalize things. For example, i bet we ll have seen a truck or like a big rig with at least one or many graffiti marks, in that case vandalism and we can't even read it.
ReplyDeleteAlot of places have graffiti in it like walls in cities, subways, buildings alot of places. Another example is people put graffiti on walls but just because they want represent a gang or a squad or something, i think that should be vandalism because in my opinion putting your gangs name on the wall is not that important. But if you put it in like an unique way it shouldn't be vandalism cause you are expressing yourself and it could be really unique. - Carlvesi L.
I think that graffiti as shown above is an art form in it's own way. It is very unique and stylish, and can be used to create beautiful works of art. "It has been exhibited in museums and art galleries across the world since its earliest stages"http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/11/when-does-graffiti-become-art/legal-venues-celebrate-graffiti-as-an-art-form. Although graffiti is often used as a source of beautiful artwork, it is also abused by many people, and is transformed into a source of vandalism. If graffiti is used to show the uniqueness or style of someone, then it should not be vandalism, but if it used in a destructive or harmful way, then it should become vandalism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Vesi that graffiti is an art form because it is special and very unique. This type of graffiti is used to express peoples creativity in their very own way. I also agree with Lauren that graffiti can be expressed in an elegant way, or as a bunch of scrambled letters on the side of a building or train. -Jackson T.
This was a really tough question. I'm gonna go with graffiti is not vandalism because of the cool pictures but it really depends on the situation. There some really cool artworks but sometimes, graffiti can show very inappropriate things. I am only going with " It's not vandalism." Because I see really cool graffiti, but when I see something in appropriate I ignor it. It's that simple, when people see in appropriate graffiti they mostly ignore it but when it looks stunning they really like it.
ReplyDeleteHowever this paragraph will be about how it IS vandalism. I am only picking both sides because this was a hard decision. It is really in appropriate sometimes and it should be stopped in some cases. There are a lot of words and that should not be in places and, well graffiti is just really really bad sometimes and it should be stopped. Those were my views from both sides.
-Max Vidal
I think that all graffiti is vandalism because it is illegal to make "art" on places you are not allowed to or don't have permission. There is a difference between graffiti then to have permission to do art or a moral on the side of a building. If you paint a moral it is like making a painting for someone. When you make graffiti for example saying " Maya was here," that is vandalism because you are writing on someone else's property.
ReplyDeleteAlso whenever I see or hear someone getting arrested for destruction of property or vandalism, most always there answer is because they were bored and they wanting to get the feeling of excitement. The answer is usually never saying I wanted to paint art. At school if you write on the desk you will get in trouble for destruction of property, not for making art. Graffiti is not art and will never be.
I am a bit two sides on this. Yes all graffiti, no matter how beautiful, is vandalism. However, imagine having some 3-D imagery painted onto your driveway, that would be awesome. Mod course there are some people who dislike graffiti to be on their property, and want it to be kept just like. This problem though, leads me to 2 solutions.
ReplyDeleteSolution 1: We can take in the "victims" say to decide whether what happened to their property should be either punishable or they allow it completely. This will take the risk away from grafitti and it will lose its in whole. But what if we took an even more effective approach, making it completely legal. The root of this idea came from a documentary, where the showed the data of what happened when Portugal decriminalize marihuana. Surprisingly enough, the percentage of users decreased dramatically. This was manly because the risk factor was taken away, so we apply this to grafitti, the same effect may happen.
Graffiti is vandalism and art at the same time. The very definition of Graffiti is "writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place." (google...) In that definition is the words "Drawing" which is a form of art, and "Illicitly" which means against the law, unlawful, and etc.
ReplyDeleteGraffiti comes in many ways ranging from massive pieces of detailed art to simple words. Those pieces of art, is art to put it simply. It took that person time and effort to create it, so it is indeed art. The words on the other hand can be derogatory or people's initials. This is my opinion is not art, but then again that is just an opinion. Calligraphy is just making fancy letters and is considered art, so is Graffiti that type of art? I personally think no, but there are other opinions out there that would say otherwise. It's all up to the person to think if a certain thing is art or not.
Even though graffiti is a way of expressing yourself, it is not an art. I believe graffiti is vandalism. If people want to do that kind of thing, they should get permission or paint a mural. That is an art. Although some graffiti looks pretty cool, it's against the law to go onto another persons property and spray paint stuff everywhere.
ReplyDeleteHowever, graffiti has its pros and cons. Some graffiti is awesome and everyone admires it, while other are lame and are put in the wrong places where people just thinks it looks stupid. Graffiti can also sometimes be very inappropriate. And it's not good for little kids to be seeing that kind of graffiti all over the place. While graffiti is pretty impressive sometimes, it's not an art, and it never should be.
I think that graffiti is both art and vandalism depending on the circumstances.Like in the frirst article they mentioned that their are some places were graffiti is legal. Even though we do gt a lot of graffiti that is in illegal places, it can still be art. I think that graffiti is vandalism when it is not in a legal place but when it is it can be art.
ReplyDeleteAlso some grafftiti copuld be valued as art and not just destruction. But all in all I think that graffiti is only vandalism when it somewhere were it is not supposed to be. "From the perspective of a graffiti writer, the debate about whether graffiti is art or crime is pointless because, ideally, it is both. "(http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/11/when-does-graffiti-become-art/legal-venues-celebrate-graffiti-as-an-art-form) This sentence states what I said above and that it can be two-sided.
Eva
I believe that graffiti is both art and vandalism. It all depends on what they write/ draw. Vandalism is when the people write gang letters or random graffiti writing. Art is when they draw something with meaning. Graffiti with a cool look and a meaning behind it is art.
ReplyDeleteGraffiti also depends on the person who did it. They are the ones who think it's art or vandalism. "From the perspective of the graffiti writer, the debate about whether graffiti is art or crime is pointless because ideally, it is both." The person who is writing the graffiti decides if it is art or not. It is both to the viewer, they just have to choose their opinion.
that's supposed to be two paragraphs^^ it didn't space right
DeleteI think graffiti can be both. It depends how and where it is used. For example, it is vandalism if it isn't supposed to be there. I also think it is vandalism if it is offensive.
ReplyDeleteI also think graffiti can be art in many ways. Some ways are like the example pictures. Graffiti can be art if it is allowed to be there and is well, a work of art. However, I think graffiti is usually vandalism. The reason is I never see any graffiti like the ones in the pictures around here. Maybe someone should make one?