TED Conversations

Derek Young
Los Angeles, CA
United States

Thinker and Experimenter,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Do you consider "GRAFFITI" art?

I found that to be a very complex loaded question because I found that all things in the world had artistic value.

So, define art, and elaborate on what you think about Graffiti.

I'll give you a few examples I recall.

Do you consider a Urinal a piece of art, if they display that in an art gallery, or are artist on canvases the only artists out there? So would you approve of an artist who displays a blank canvas as art? So where does graffiti fall upon a scale of art and not art?

Please feel free to give your most artistic interpretations. Art snobs beware and the rest, LET'S GET ARTSY!

Update: I just added a TedTalk relating our conversation. I hope you will check it out. =)

Related Talks:

Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0

Topics: Graffiti art

Sort By:

Derek Young 30+
- 0
Apr 9 2012: Update Above.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
- 0
Host

Apr 7 2012: When you wrote graffiti, I was thinking of what people put up, often in spray paint, on walls of abandoned buildings or on temporary walls along construction sites. I was not thinking of when someone cuts a word into a bathroom stall. Obviously one could write a poem in a bathroom stall, including a poem that is also published.
- Derek Young 30+
  - 0
  Apr 8 2012: I purposely gave an open ended question, but I was wondering what you viewed was art.
  
  I meant Graffiti as in both style and defacing of property. It was an old essay prompt that I didn't get a passing grade on. Maybe I didn't use all the right explanations, but I still think that all things have artistic value, even some of the most grotesque things in the world.
  
  Art provokes emotions and up for interpretation from person to person. Like one person's trash is another person's treasure.
Naeem Khattak
- 0
Apr 5 2012: Most definitely indeed.
- Derek Young 30+
  - 0
  Apr 7 2012: How would you feel if it was your property that had the graffiti, which was uncommissioned by you, but it was appealing to your taste in art?
John Penn
- 0
Apr 5 2012: My stab at a definition for "art" :
An effective and efficient expression of a thought or vision.

If the graffiti demonstrates disrespect (for example, someone else's property, without their permission), then the only thing that it will be effective at is making people angry.

However, here in Houston I've seen some "graffiti" (done with permission) that I find pretty amazing and definitely consider to be art.
- Derek Young 30+
  - 0
  Apr 7 2012: Well in disrespectful way, graffiti is used to set gang territories as well, which would be the second effect. Sometimes the third effect of graffiti is entertainment in the male restroom. Just how I analyze it.
edward long 100+
- 0
Apr 3 2012: If Jackson Pollock slung epoxy paint all over your new car, would you consider it vandalism? How about if an unemployed high school dropout from the ghetto spray painted his graphic message on your car, would you call it art?
- Derek Young 30+
  - 0
  Apr 7 2012: Buy me a new car and let's test that theory out. ;D
  
  I feel it would be situational and I would judge it through the timing it happened in.
  - edward long 100+
    
    0
    Apr 7 2012: I think Mr. Pollock is dead, but even more problematical is me getting the money to buy you a new car. My point is I have seen graffiti-style artwork displayed in legitimate galleries and I have seen it defacing property. Our perception of the value of art is influenced by monetary value. I doubt anyone would object to Picasso brushing a colorful image on their garage door. If your question has to do with the application of images on inappropriate surfaces my answer is no, graffiti is not art because it violates the rights of another, which true art should not do.
    - Derek Young 30+
      
      0
      
      Apr 8 2012: I shun the idea of monetary value, but focus on putting my shoes in another person's mind-set. I think art is to provoke emotions, but allows the viewer or the one that engages in that art to interpret that art how they desire. Though, conversations/dialogue can open each individual to a new view of the same art, which at each period of time may mean something different to an individual. For instance, sometimes they want to make you angry especially the defacing of property may fulfill its purpose.
      
      Going back to monetary value, I think that it sometimes is unfair how some art is judged. Like when someone rich person creates something "'artful", it may sometimes be in poor taste, but someone poor makes something magnificent and doesn't get acknowledgment for their work, sometimes never. I wish that art didn't have a monetary label, but I know people need to eat, so change would be nice, though it takes one to inform the many. I do see how some art deserves the monetary label, but other times it can seem ridiculous.
      
      Have you heard of this:
      http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/739922847/museum-of-non-visible-art-praxis-and-james-franco. Invisible art shouldn't be worth so much. Edward, what light can you shed on this type of art? I feel that it is like getting an education, but sometimes, ideas should be free. =/
      
      Thanks for reading my thoughts and feel free to share yours. =)
  - edward long 100+
    
    0
    Apr 8 2012: If art is defined simply as anything visible, hearable, smellable, tasteable, or touchable which has the effect of provoking emotions in those who experience it, then all manner of generally unsavory, inappropriate, nonsensical, offensive, harmful, meaningless, and/or ugly works are elevated to legitimacy. Therefore, I disgree with that definition. Art is a social expression. It should strengthen and nourish society. G.K. Chesterton said, "Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere." As for the link you shared I can only say Pish-Tosh! Do art, Mr. Young. Thanks.
    - Derek Young 30+
      
      0
      
      Apr 8 2012: Well, in my personal definition, it is exactly as you describe in your first sentence about art. I put things in the category "likes" and "dislikes", but there are some things I am in the middle about. I see all has artistic value, key word "vaule". "Value" and "Liking" a piece of art is two entirely different concepts, to me, then I would consider the depth of meaning in the piece.
      
      Maybe someday I shall "Do" art, but first I need to finish my current goals first. =)
      
      Thanks.
Padraig Connor
- 0
Apr 3 2012: Art? No - I consider graffiti to be a visual assault. It is against the law as destruction of property, key word DESTRUCTION. If some nimrod with a spray can of paint needs a canvas, let them buy one.
- Derek Young 30+
  - 0
  Apr 7 2012: So, are you trying to say that the 'style' of Graffiti is alright and they just need to have the work legally commissioned in order for it to be appealing to the public?
Fritzie Reisner 100+
- 0
Host

Apr 2 2012: The intentional decoration of outdoor walls can surely be considered art. To be considered creative, it should be novel and adaptive in the sense of having a purpose or speaking to the viewer.
- Derek Young 30+
  - 0
  Apr 7 2012: How would you judge graffiti if it were on an abandoned factory wall or in small print within a restroom stall?
  
  Sometimes the most random places can have very interesting graffiti.

Showing all 17 comments

Sign In

To join or start a conversation, you'll need to sign in. Not a member? Register Now (it's free and fast).

Live Conversations

Live Conversations are hosted by TED speakers and TED Fellows. Ask your questions and participate in the discussions on the following dates and times: