Dyed All Hues

Thinker and Experimenter,


This conversation is closed.

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. =)

  • thumb
    Apr 9 2012: Update Above.
  • thumb
    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.
    • thumb
      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.
  • Apr 5 2012: Most definitely indeed.
    • thumb
      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?
  • 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.
    • thumb
      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.
  • thumb
    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?
    • thumb
      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.
      • thumb
        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.
        • thumb
          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. =)
      • thumb
        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.
        • thumb
          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. =)

  • 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.
    • thumb
      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?
  • thumb
    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.
    • thumb
      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.