Graffiti. Art or Vandalism?

Question:I personally think it is art.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I personally think it is art.

Graffiti can be either - it is actually declared by the intention of the creator. I think of Graffiti as an art medium myself. I see it as a history of inner city struggles, angst and life. I have seen photographs of some of the works that I would certainly classify as art. It is only vandalism when it is only purpose it to deface space and property - and even then it just seems like a form of protest.

It's not your property, and you decide to do whatever you want on it? Vandalism.

If it is your property, then it's art.

art art art art art

I agree. It is art.

I think it could be both, and not an either or question. Sometimes the act of marking on certain objects makes a social statement. Our western definition of Art usually involves personal expression and social commentary. Is art for a certain elite population, or everyone? Why not put your art out there for everyone to see?

It can be both. Depending on your viewpoint and depending on the theories applied to it, the context of the "graffiti". Who "owns" the grafitti and who "owns" the media its painted upon. Its worth noting that graffitti can be broken down into a form of "mark-making" on readily available and observabel surfaces in public domain. Why should art be only for the priviliged and elite? Sometimes, the subject matter/concepts can seem a bit puerile/un-developed, but thats just my opinion. Some graffiti art can also be awesome. Check out the book "Street Skectbook."

psssh. people need to draw a distinction, otherwise a dog peeing on your doorstep is art. It leaves its signature.

I think it's the intent with which graffiti is created which makes it art or vandalism, and you'd need to refer to more specific examples.