Graffiti

Graffiti Art: An Essay Concerning The Recognition of Some Forms of Graffiti As Art
George C. Stowers [email protected]
Prof. Goldman
Phil 651 Aesthetics
Fall 1997

Overview
Graffiti art is an art form. The reasons, including aesthetic criteria, as to why it is an art form far outweigh the criticism of illegality, incoherence, and nonstandard presentation. The objective of this paper is to explain how graffiti art overcomes these concerns and thereby can be considered as an art form.

Suppose that Leonardo, Monet, Picasso, or any of the recognized artisans of Western European culture were alive in the present day. Then, suppose that one of these famous artists decided to paint a masterpiece on the side of your house or on your front door or on a wall in your neighborhood. Would Picasso or Monet's markings be graffiti or art or vandalism or graffiti art? The answer may vary across people, but I would claim that those markings are art in the form of graffiti. Their markings would qualify as vandalism only if they appeared on private or public property without permission. The same answer holds for the present day, genre of graffiti known as graffiti art.

http://www.graffiti.org/faq/stowers.html

Artist: Banksy

http://www.banksy.co.uk/menu.html

Graffiti "STENCIL" art.



Link See the whole project.

I dont see that as graffiti. to me it is art.

graffiti is unwanted and unintelligable scribble

Thats the big question. And i'm not kidding that is a very big question in graffiti art. Vandalism or art?

Berlin wall

Art has redeeming qualities. beauty, social significance, interest and others.

graffiti has no redeeming quality

dadpad, It's more complicated then that. It has started major debate starting with exactly what you are saying.

Remember everything Ive posted here are from "graffiti artist". Please endulge me and take a look at the link to wikipedia on graffiti art.

Right here

"Clean Train Movement" Era
Currently, the graffiti movement is in the "Clean Train Movement" (1989-present), and is characterized by a majority of graffiti artists moving from illegal graffiti to "street galleries". The Clean Train Movement started in May, 1989, when New York attempted to remove all of the subway cars found with graffiti on them out of the transit system. Because of this, many writers had to resort to new ways to express themselves. A lot of controversy arose among the streets debating whether graffiti should be considered an actual form of art. [4]

During this period many graffiti artists have taken to a new medium, displaying their works in galleries and owning their own studios. This phenomenon had started in the early 1980's for artists such as Jean-Michel Basquiat, who started out tagging locations with his signature SAMO (Same Old ****), and Keith Haring, who was also able to take his art into studio spaces.

http://www.graffiti.org/

I agree it is complicated, or sort of complicated. And, now, complex.

Tired now, talk later?

There's no issue here as far as I can see. A work of art can be illegally placed and therefore grafitti--but still art. To argue that all illegal markings are ipso facto non-art, is to imply that all legal markings are ipso facto art.

There is an unwritten law among graffiti artist that you do not paint, stencil, etc, etc on peoples private property or on public property that is inappropriate.

I posted a long reply a bit ago, and lost it. Back tomorrow. Nag me if I don't' show up.

I've done the same exact thing more then once. It drove me nuts. I was very proud and took a long time to write an elaborate well thought post and then BAM! I lost it. See you tomorrow.

nods...

http://www.graffiti.org/

What's the deal, you are trying to wake me up?

manana..

I'm always up this time of night and there is nobody to talk to so I come here and post graffiti.

I know you are familiar with graffiti coming from Venice.