2006-10-20 21:22:21 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Other - Visual Arts
If I found it on my fence or other property, I would call it vandalism. I do not care for it on road signs or walls, either - most of it is just ugly.
2006-10-20 21:26:29 · answer #1 · answered by Jeannie 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Yes,.. but Graffiti Artist should get into Graphic Arts and Calligrify since people tend to try to ignore Graffiti.
Some times Graffiti is Stencil. Which is that someone is takeing something with the letters already cut out and just spraying this thing that does work for them >.> If your at all confused about this, contact a Kindergarten teacher and ask them and find out if Kindergarteners do that XD
2006-10-21 04:50:34 · answer #2 · answered by sailortinkitty 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Are cave paintings art? Are the markings that monkeys and elephants make on canvases prepared by trainers, art? Are the temperas and crayolas taped to the refrigerator art? Intent has a lot to do with whether the output of an individual can be classified as art. If the intent is transgression (some graffit, then maybe not). If the buidling or train car is intended as a substrate for artistic expression, then maybe yes. If the maker is dedicated to doing this everyday, and is on a quest for truth and understanding, then quite likely.
2006-10-21 07:31:22 · answer #3 · answered by Victor 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It can be. There are some that do some pretty cool stuff. Tagging on the other hand is not. I'll admit there may be an art to the development of the tag but other than that it's just an eye sore that gets plastered everywhere. I've been busted for graffiti before and It took me more than just a few seconds to do. Work and hide, run from traffic then go back and do more. It was exciting.
But to just tag and run is just silly to me.
2006-10-21 06:57:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Graffiti art will only truly be graffiti art when it is on the street, on some walls, in some unknow alley, for the general public to see. It looses its graffiti value once it gets into the Gallery and will therefore become another art form.
2006-10-22 11:15:23 · answer #5 · answered by nixie 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Anything original is art. The problem with graffiti is that it is mostly put onto a canvas (read wall or building) that is not theirs to paint on.
2006-10-21 04:33:28 · answer #6 · answered by meucando 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If done in the right place (where permission is given) then yes it is a form of art, some of those graffiti drawings are very good, I could never paint that good.
2006-10-21 04:25:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
no art is not just taking a spaypaint can and riuining property that is not yours However there are prorams that in urban areas they paint making the cities look nice thats art in a positive way but I am pretty sure graffitti is just somethings kids go through to feel
identificaton or the need to be recognized its hard to really think of graffitti as art and yet thats just my take on it it anything that may be abstract art but it is not fine art or commercial art or even kitsch
2006-10-21 05:02:37 · answer #8 · answered by .................................... 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
it depends on whether its constructive or destructive art if you are doing it to vandalise someone property then it is a destructive piece of work that you would like to call art but if you are doing it to make something look nice and you have permission then yeah i guess you could call it art.
2006-10-21 05:34:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It can be.
Young punks cursing w/ graffiti on walls/fences/posters/ etc, no, it's called vandalism.
2006-10-21 04:25:33 · answer #10 · answered by Chrissy 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Grafitti is vandalism.
Art should be authorized. Besides, I don't think scribbling/spraying obscenities on bus stops, walls, signs is any form of art.
If you really want to paint the city, then get a contract. You get paid to do it properly and well.
2006-10-21 04:33:16 · answer #11 · answered by demi-kun 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋