Graffiti, art or vandalism, and why?

Question

What do you all think?

Answer 1

I think both
graffiti is art is expression, which is beautiful;
however, painting graffiti on property that does not belong to you is a crime called vandalism.

Answer 2

When it is created without the owners' consent, which I believe is usually the case, it is *clearly* vandalism! Whether the content is art or sludge, that part is not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of law.

It's also a matter of rights, and respect for another person's belongings, feelings, time and money.

To the graffiti artists, how's this sound?... I may not like the look of your house, or your car. Or I may just want my ego to bask in showing off my "signature." So I'll paint an elaborate image on your car. Nothing to get upset about -- it's my *art.* I'm beautifying the neighborhood. In fact, I'm performing a service; people will admire me! I'll write words on your house. It's ok! -- I'm making a statement.

What hubris! What self-righteous audacity!

These people are vandals and should be fined and/or jailed, consistently.

I think anyone with a conscience knows that defacing *private* property is wrong. Some perpetrators justify what they do, no doubt, by sticking to public structures, thinking they aren't hurting anyone. But I say to them, *they* are not yours either! They are everyone's. I often don't like your art -- it's a damn eye-sore. But more to the point, you have *no right* to change these buildings in any way, shape or form, without permission, even if I *do* like it!

Assuming the goal is really art -- which is the subject of the question but not always of the graffiti -- a reasonable person with a talent and genuine interest in beautifying a building would ask permission... make an offer. A vandal would never even *consider* such a thing because he/she has no concept of empathy or respect for another person's property. It's his blank slate for the taking! Or he assumes the answer would be no, and does it anyway, proving my point.

Another reason graffiti is vandalism: I and the other taxpayers have to pay to clean it up, or have it repainted! That payment comes in the form of taxes, if it's public property, or higher costs for services or goods, if it's a private business that was vandalized. This is one reason the "artists" should be fined -- or be made to pay restitution to the business owner!

Where it's a matter of opinion is in the art aspect, alone. Technically, of course graffiti can be art. A vandal can be as creative and talented as the next person!

But just because the art may be beautiful to some people -- or the message hold the wisdom of the ages -- that is not an excuse. Without the owners' consent, it is either artistic *vandalism* or it is *simply* vandalism, depending on the viewer.

I've seen graffiti that shows great talent, and some which is (at face value, alone) nothing less than beautiful. Yet I strongly disapprove, and find myself enraged more than appreciative. Some people will enjoy the art and some will not. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder. But that isn't the issue. Indeed it's *all the more reason* to keep your paws off someone else's property!

Answer 3

If one owns the building or property being painted, it's art...however, graffiti and vandalism are the same. People who express themselves using graffiti need to do it on their own property!

Answer 4

Vandalism, pure and simple.
Property rights are absolute. Graffiti "artists" have no right to slather paint randomly on someone else's property without the owner's consent.
If the owner freely gives consent, that is another matter, but it must be explicit.

Answer 5

Personally, I think it's a form of art. Rebel Art...Reart...

Even though it is technically vandalism, people are able to express themselves through this style of drawing.

Answer 6

Sadly, it's usually vandalism because they're spraying paint all over something that's not theirs to start with.

Answer 7

Beats looking at buildings that need painted.