Is graffiti art?

Question

most people say its vandelism.. However... isn't the whole point of art expression? and if it is a form of expression and feelings exerted in art isn't the artist making a statement by putting it where he or she wants? Isn't that what makes graffiti unique and different? Sure there is a point where it is considered vandelism.. but aren't their certain positions where it should be considered art as well? ?

I'm doing an argumentative essay on why graffiti is art. .. What is your view? I'm not necessarily saying I agree with my stance.. it is the topic I got.

Answer 1

I guess you could say that. But I guess you could say me urinating in the street was art too. Doesn't make it legal/right.

I don't consider something art unless the artist is creating for artistic purposes. I don't think people who graffiti have artistic purposes in mind.

Answer 2

Graffiti is certainly an invasion of other people's collective or personal space and property. On that ground it is vandalism - although it doesn't compare with the Talibans' destruction of the giant Buddhas in Afghanistan. But whether it's art or not depends on its quality, and the judgement of those who see it. Graffiti includes the marvelous cave paintings in Altimara, or the Australian aboriginal work in the Kimberleys etc; all recognised now as some of the most beautiful and significant artwork ever produced although technologically simple and "primitive" (which here means only "first" or "primary". The same is true for much graffiti on preserved walls of ancient civilisations such as Greece and Rome. "Art" is initially defined by the mores of its own time; but if it survives, emerges from the judgement of many different generations, with different mores, who find something to identify with in it - that makes it "classic", or perhaps "great". It therefor transcends particular cultures in time and in space. Whether a work of graffiti survives, and whether it is seen as art, depends on the depth and universality of its emotional appeal. It may do that - or it may be seen only as the egoistic scribbling of infantile minds, largely lacking both insight and original imagination - as most of it does seem to me. So it stands or falls on the same criteria as all art - and that alone may qualify it to be judged as art. Now do your own homework! Good luck.

Answer 3

I think people use the word ART too loosely. It doesn't just mean expression. Otherwise what I'm expressing right now could be called art. That's too broad a definition.

Graffiti is words and therefore would fall under the category of communication. And when it's on someone else's property it's also called vandalism!

Answer 4

I agree with popcynic. I suppose it would fall under vandalism really.

If graffiti were an art, what would be its purpose?To beautify the place? Haven't seen a wall full of graffiti yet to be beautiful or pleasing. An artist who paints or a scuptor who engraves always has beauty/harmony and purpose when he does his work of art.

Although you may say it's a form of expression. It is indeed. But it seems it tries to express some form of rebellion.

Answer 5

Yeppers! I believe graffiti is art!!! It's very creative and free to me. But it isn't a good idea when you tag any where. I know of at least one wall in my city that graffiti is allowed. Art should be shown every where. Who doesn't like art?

Answer 6

Graffiti, art, to me it's all an expression. Rather people agree or disagree then that's their choice. We are all humans with certain taste and some people like to live and experience different taste, rather if it's in art or food or religion. As for tatto's goes, that's a permint deal so if you get one than it's for the rest of your life, but it's your body to do what you please. Some people like to train to get their body in shape and others like to dress it up with tatto's.

Answer 7

The only thing needed for graffiti to be art is to have an intentention, and that every single person that sees it can describe what was the author's purpose when he or she drawed it.

Answer 8

Ask Banksy.

He started off as a public nuissance in england, with anit-English-American /government sentiments in his stenciled spraypainted images. These included kissing guards from buckingham palace, girls hugging bombs instead of teddybears, and rioters throwing boquets of folwers instead of moltov cocktails.

After a few years, people stopped sandblasting his images off the buildings, favoring leaving them up.

Even in anonymity, he was given his own gallery show, where he painted cars, walls, and....cows. live cows.

So yes, case-and-point, Banksy is a "graffitti artist."

Also, look for the "wheat pasted" graffiti of David Kinsey.


I prefer to look at graffitti as "urban beautification." There is a line between siply tagging your name in spraypaint, and creating something worth looking at, which I believe both banksy and kinsey do. It is very guerrilla to do so, but art doesn't cease to be art because it's not on a musem wall. True, it is traditionally placed in or on public or private property that is not the owners, but the question is not where it is. the question is more along the lines of "is it pleasing to look at?"

Answer 9

Simply, yes. Everything that someone has created or designed is art. Graffiti is created by an individual. The way they write it, the colours added to it, nd what it means to them.

I know it's soooo late but I rly had to say this

Answer 10

i think it cause i cant write the way they do words... although it is vandelism... it takes a lot of work to make probably

Answer 11

It is art, and it is some of the only art all these haters can see for free..