Graffiti... Art or Vandalism?

[Soulquarian]

It what seems to be the new scapegoat for politicians, videogames are continually being scrutinized over their content. The newest controverst is over Marc Ecko's (Ecko Clothing) new game Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure . The groups are worried over the publicity on Atari's website, which claims that the game is "a groundbreaking graffiti play system, designed to sharpen your skills as you tag with Aerosol, Rollers, Markers, Wheat Paste, Stickers and Stencils." The game will aid in "allowing you to find ideal places to tag," and demonstrate the ability to "infiltrate areas and avoid capture" and "create tags in pressure situations."

Marc Ecko was going to have a "Getting Up" Block Party in NYC which was to be a free art event featuring graf writers, artists, and music. However, his permit was revoked by New York City. NYC Mayor Micheal Bloomberg said:

"Graffiti is just one of those things that destroys our quality of life, and why anybody thinks that it's funny or cute to encourage kids to go do that, I don't know. We have talked to them and asked them to not have a subway car motif to write graffiti. This is not really art or expression. This is - let's be honest about what it is - it's trying to encourage people to do something that's not in anybody's interest."

Marc Ecko was going to have replicas of NYC Subway Cars, and allow popular graffiti artists to demonstrate their skills. He responded with a public letter...

"Unfortunately the spirit of the event, as it was originally conceived and as it has been presented to the appropriate civic groups and government officials since November 2004, seems to have been lost in the haste to stereotype all graffiti-style artists as 'vandals' and to brand this event as a 'promotion of crime.' At its core, this is an event designed to celebrate an art form born from the streets of New York over two decades ago as a means of creative self-expression, allowing the public a unique chance to experience the workmanship and skill that go into creating a piece of art fine enough to hang on the walls of any traditional gallery or museum. Upon completion, a 48-foot mural will be donated to The Point, a Bronx-based nonprofit youth development organization, while the remaining nine will be placed throughout the city for public display."

So what do you think? Is it vandalism or is it art?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I'm not so sure that it is exclusively one or the other. I would definitely consider some that I have seen to be artistic. That doesn't mean that someone elses property wasn't defaced in the creation though.

[BigThunder]

Simple:
If you do it on somebody elses property (or public property) it is vandalism.
If you do it on your own walls its art.

As my mother used to say: "Fools' names and fools' faces are always found in public places."

[Christi]

Well, i guess it depends where it is....if its on someone's brand new building, or somewhere else that ruins it ambiance, then its vandalism no matter how great it is, IMHO. if someone decided to Tag my home or boutique I would freak out..no matter how cool it was.....but I love the ones that really bring to life an old or decaying piece of property...make sense?
I would REALLY love to see how the taggers do the really hard areas, those upper bridge areas, places like that....on the freeways I have to be careful not to wreck my car, just trying to stare and figure out how the heeeeeck did they do that??

[Druggas]

It's vandalistic art! Is vandalistic even a word?

[TheDisneyInquisitor]

If a group of people get permission to do it and they do it as a mural-type painting on a wall to help enhance the beauty...then it is art.

If they don't have permission then it is vandalism.

-Michael

[General You]

As a form of creative expression it is always art, but it can also be vandalism. The two terms aren't mutually exclusive. Sometimes, the vandalsim, or violation of private property is part of the artistic expression challenging those very boundries.

[Tom Chaney]

Your right to swing your fist stops at the other person's nose. Your right to "freedom of expression" stops at the other person's property.

"infiltrate areas and avoid capture"

Anytime you engage in an enterprise where avoidance of capture is a consideration, you're probably doing something wrong. Indeed, if avoidance of capture is on your mind, you KNOW you're doing something wrong.

"create tags in pressure situations."

...and what would this "pressure" be? The pressure to get in and get out before you're caught? Let's be honest. If painting stuff on other people's property is a crime, then encouraging "artists" to do it is "'promotion of crime.'

Perhaps Bloomberg went a little far in stating that graffiti is "...not really art or expression..." because, obviously, to some it is. I can understand his frustration, however, as the mayor of a city. Again... let's be honest. While some graffiti is meant as an artistic expression, most "tags" are created as nothing more than a ego-stroke for the tagger. I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that the proliferation of tags on bridges, subway cars, walls, buildings, etc. is publicly viewed more as visual pollution than as a thing of beauty.

To draw this discussion into the realm of this website let me ask:

How much do you celebrate the initials and sayings carved into the queue at Tower Of Terror and elsewhere at DLR? Would you encourage the use of aerosol paint on Main Street USA? Should we allow those who would like to display their artistic skills to use DLRR as a canvas?

...as a means of creative self-expression, allowing the public a unique chance to experience the workmanship and skill that go into creating a piece of art fine enough to hang on the walls of any traditional gallery or museum.

[Disney Analyst]

If giant skulls and letters you can't read is art... well then I'd hate to see actual vandalism

[luvsongthatnvrends]

As a form of creative expression it is always art, but it can also be vandalism. The two terms aren't mutually exclusive. Sometimes, the vandalsim, or violation of private property is part of the artistic expression challenging those very boundries.

I agree
Some people think that the big gang signs and gang writting is graffitti, but graffitti is just an expression of art, tagging is where gang plays their role.

[luvsongthatnvrends]

www.janok.net/ 7th%20digital%20art%20field.htm
Check out this page
there are some graffiti examples, you might have to copy and paste the link into your address bar for it to work.

[Disney Analyst]

The problem is, if it's on someones buisness and it's something like a skull it's very disturbing and makes it so not many people come in. If your gonna grafitti do it in your own home!

[Speedway]

It is not very nice when it (umm....the opposite to enhances) property, but some graffiti is very expressive - usually only when given permission to do it. Aerosols etc can create wonderful effects that are beautiful to the eye, but when it is swearing, pessimistic images, SCRUB IT OFF!

[luvsongthatnvrends]

If giant skulls and letters you can't read is art... well then I'd hate to see actual vandalism

Anything can be art, especially self expression. Even if others dont understand it.
"Actual vandalism" is defined as "the willful or malicious destruction or defacement of property"- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.
When graffiti is put into a controlled area where no one else's property is damaged, i can't consider it vandalism. I think some people consider it destructive no matter where it is.
I disagree.

[Tom Chaney]

The question of whether graffiti/tagging is art or not is really too subjective to answer. To some it is. To some it is not. It isn't likely one side is going to change the minds of the other. The more important issue is the method of display of that "art." Some people like Picasso, Kandinsky and Dali. Some people don't. BUT... these artists at least bought and paid for their own canvases.