Tagging, Graffitti, what ever you want to call it, is it art or vandalism and would you pay for it?
2006-09-15 09:13:21 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
I'm on the fence on this one. I consider graffiti art if it doesn't pertain to gang territory or violence. If it's to relay a message (especially political or societal) then definitely art. But there are actually a lot of great graffiti artists out there. And I would pay if I thought the message held something important to me.
2006-09-15 09:18:58 · answer #1 · answered by §чﺀﺀчβчﻯ†a 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All right guy - "let me break it down for you" because it is obvious to me you are a confused/misinformed or even ignorant to the facts (no offense).
Tagging is vandalism. Graffitti is art. People that appreciate art will and might pay for an artist to Graffitti on the wall of their business so that "taggers" will not be able to tag all over it. You see, taggers usually do it to "get up" or "be known" by others and have no intention of being artist, although some taggers do become artist. The artist does it gracefully for others to appreciate.
If you feel that graffitti artist "vandalise" public or even private property for displaying their talent then that is your opinion but honestly not all people/artist choose to use the same means.
I live in Los Angeles and there are places/walls where a graffitti artist can do what he does, sadly though there are not enough of these "legal" walls so they resort to doing it where they deem good and well, unforunately it is more than likely public property so therefore it CAN be considered -vandalism.
oh well.....
2006-09-15 09:32:26 · answer #2 · answered by Tanyah 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
False dichotomy, I think. There's no reason that art can't also be vandalism / vandalism can't also be art. Some of the best art has always existed at the margins of society, or beyond what society is willing to condone. Some art is destructive. Sometimes destruction is art.
That said, I wouldn't pay for graffiti unless I had a specific reason to.
2006-09-15 09:17:03 · answer #3 · answered by Drew 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Destroying others property with graffiti is vandalism! Some graffiti is art.
Tagging is just that tagging claiming your territory.It is vandalism.
2006-09-15 09:20:40 · answer #4 · answered by shookyloo® 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When it is on someone elses property, it is vandalism. If you do it on your own house, or on some canvas or something, that can be art. And no, I would not pay for it. That's like paying for some gang to sign my house.
2006-09-15 09:18:10 · answer #5 · answered by Kiko 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well if its not on your property , I would have to say art in the form of vandalism.
2006-09-15 09:15:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some of those guys are artists.
They just need a canvas to paint and not a wall (vandalism).
2006-09-15 09:16:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say neither paintings nor vandalism. Graffiti is the expression of choose, and the well-known of that expression varies drastically. i do no longer think in deepest assets, so i could relatively opt to be certain graffiti everywhere - I recommend, think of a city wherein choose grew to become into written everywhere!
2016-12-18 10:54:54 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Vandalism..no doubt..its a crime and should be paid out of the "profits of crime" bank account...The money should be paid back by the accused paying or served community hours (good luck )
2006-09-15 09:18:03 · answer #9 · answered by Ken and Wendy M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the owner gives consent, it's art. If he doesn't, it's vandalism.
2006-09-15 09:17:20 · answer #10 · answered by shortchanged 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋