People have set up warehouses in various cities that allow the sides of their buildings to be used for graffiti, but if someone drew a very nice picture on you without your consent (i.e. sleeping) then wouldn't you wash it off? It's someone else's property, and a lot of the time it's made up of little scribbles. Some neighbours of mine have had to repeatedly re-paint their wall because people who have no respect for the costs of clean up decided to vandalise it repeatedly.
I know it can look good, but that doesn't excuse the artist's decision to use someone else's property, who they haven't even asked, as a canvas. I realise there can be political/social messages, but why not paint your house? Or paint on canvases and leave those around the city? Last year a bunch of jerks broke into a train station while floods were going on and vandalised multiple carts, some of which were brand new. Some of the artwork is kind of pleasanat to look at, but it certainly wasn't asked for and permission wasn't given. Now the council has to squeeze the budget a bit further to clean those carts off, which could have gone towards funding street-art projects.
I think if the person's a good artist and their artwork is good, they ought to do it on a poster or something, somewhere where they can keep it, show it off and enjoy it. Whether it's good or not doesn't matter though if it's done illegally.
Take a look at this flickr set for instance [link] This is in my country, after the revolution. I think this is real street art. These paintings depict different scenes, slogans, and pictures of famous victims of the former regime. The Muslim Brotherhood painted over the street art with white, making it sound like it was an act of maintaining their country. But the truth is they wanted to erase any trace of resistance, literally.
This is another flickr set, this time of the Palestine wall. [link] As the set before it, it is a form of resistance. Street art is a form of self-expression. Sure, sometimes it's misused. But The law is not just or fair, and I think it shouldn't be illegal everywhere.
It really depends. Definitely not on someone's private property or fence because they have to re-paint it (so you're hurting someone else).
It's totally acceptable to graffiti on advertisements however. Ads are way worse than graffiti. At least graffiti looks nice and doesn't try to shove their products down my throat. And still the assholes who advertise with their massive billboards dare to complain when someone messes with them. They are ugly in any landscape and shouldn't be legal.
I like the idea of walls made specially for graffiti because it makes sort of a place that's designed or "arted on" by everyone and anyone - it's like a very big collab at its best (or colour salad at its worst).
I remember when I was in Germany I went through this pedestrian tunnel that was entirely covered in graffiti - some were works of art and some were tagging, but I thought it was beautiful somehow. While it was still a public place, it was a nice addition. In my opinion of course
Around here there are places where they prepare walls specifically for artistic graffiti. I think tagging is wrong, especially if it's on private property of public transport, to name a couple examples. But if it's actually good artistic-wise, and it's not in a place that would could offence, then I say go for it.
i think i agree with what you said in your comment... there should be a way around this... the authorities and city councils should offer bland walls for artists for 'tender' of their graffitti, and the artists should be able to pitch their ideas to the authorities. makes a beautiful world, doesn't it?
Any way, I still think art should be done under the law if you don't want to be caught. Unless your bansky.
Still, its only illegal, since buildings are not your playground. They belong to someone and spraying good art on them, isn't going to always make them happy. Sure I don't care about grafitti, but some buisness owners may not like it.
I'll feel very guilty for saying this but...I don't...really...mind graffiti that much...
Yea...I know I shouldn't cheer for it because it is illegal but it looks really creative. That is until someone does it to my house. I'd be pissed but that's a kick in the butt for me for being a hypocrite. :< *sob*
To be more specific, my response is the same as ~calvin-py's.
One of my brothers really LOVES street art, though. Then again he also hates cops so, yea...
For example Ry, if I made the worlds most beautiful carving on your back with a rusty spoon, is it ok or not? Because graffiti is the same, you defile property of another person, what you consider artful or beautiful may not be the same the owner considers that. You are a criminal, just because your crime is beautiful or artful does not mean you are not a criminal and your punishment should be all the same.
Well there are many ways to produce art without being illegal and causing disturbance to the public rite? Sure its pretty somtimes an strong messages within it like banksy, but i rather he uses his talent in places with permission, it prob defeata the purpose but still.
I disagree with graffiti because most the time it's just some random words scribbled in "cool" font. But in London there is a amazing graffiti artist called Banksy, they actually don't bother washing his art away. But I still think it's wrong to graffiti. If you want to graffiti you may as well draw on the walls in your house.
Well they do take away banksy's art somtimes. See thats the thing though, banksys work is unique and recognisable and therefore his work is allowed to stay, how is this fair? Its not. If the police r doin the right thing they shouldve taken down any banksy work in places that are not permitted but if the property owner steps in then allow it, actually i think dats wats happpening. Wat im trying to say is banksy should use his talent less controversially.
It depends on the art and on the locale. I don't care for tags unless they are really glorious, but I have seen some really great shit done. I also don't care for, say, historical landmarks, to be defaced. But I'm big on history. What do I know, right?
It's illegal. So no. If it was in an area where graffiti was allowed, then yeah, it's great, but it's illegal for a reason. Yeah, some people might like it, but then again, some people won't. It takes time and money to remove graffiti.
I think graffiti's great but there's no point in doing it if it's illegal, that's sort of committing a crime :/
Even if it does seem like a small one that doesn't really harm anyone physically, it's still a crime, or at least that's how I feel, not saying that the work instantly becomes shit, it just feels like a waste if you do it on illegal grounds, like, why bother going through all that effort when it's just going to be cleaned up and you're going to get into trouble?
Like there was once some Swedish guy ( I think he was Swedish ) did some graffiti that looked really cool and all but he did it on the sides of a train :/
I guess illegal street art is... it's a bit hard to describe, something like while it's really beautiful and all it's still destroying someone's property. Like how would people feel if their houses had graffiti on it and no permission was given for it to be there, I'd be pretty annoyed, no matter how nice it looks, I mean, it could attract a lot of unwanted attention :/ And it'd be a hassle to clean it up even though you didn't make it, but that's just how I feel.
Well i'm in between, it is illegal for some reason, so maybe it would be nice if you want to do a grafitti to ask permission to do that in that place you want. some of the grafitties i've saw are really cool others are ... not cool...
but if you want to do a graffity then you should and must ask permition to (and if you ask permition and they let you do it, it isn't illegal in my view point. It will only be if you don't aks, or ask but they don't let you go it and you do it anyway.)
Im actually with the 15%. no matter how good and amazing the art is.. its still illegal. Its still gonna be taken down, its still gonna require effort from the cleaners to take it down. I made a comparison the other day on a friend's poll about this question. I asked Is it ok to go into a restaurant and strip down completely naked because I think my body is beautiful? Or go into a public library and sing as loud as I can because I have the voice of Mariah Carey? HELL NO. But thats the thing, its illegal for a reason. Especially when it comes to art, its too subjective. It would be 100% fine and highly encouraged if talented artists do the street art on legal grounds, thats perfectly fine. I personally got in trouble before for drawing on classrooms tables and school walls (With a chalk ok, im not that bad of a kid), but I got in trouble anyway. I was really pissed off and couldn't understand why I wasn't allowed to. Anyway I know now, if I am a teacher and a student started doing table drawings or watever I too would be mad. Anyway here's my input into this. Please stick to the laws, there are other ways to express yourself and your talent without being illegal.
I apologize but I disagree with you teacher student example as a good one. If you're caught defacing school property in a teacher's classroom, more often than not the repair comes out of the teacher's pocket (has defaced a table, locker or two) If you want a positive spin on this, all graffiti keeps our public beautification offices in business. They can decide if the graffiti is work keeping, having maybe never thought of putting art where it is. There are several pieces in Indianapolis that are here because of this. Even if they decide the art must be removed, someone is paid to do that job and take home food for their kids that night. Stopping graffiti is like stopping art period. You choose to do it on a different medium than graffiti artists. If you were drawing on paper meant for printing is that wrong? Nope.
sorry wat? If you were drawing on paper meant for printing is that wrong? of cos thats not wrong, I choose that medium because its not illegal. I dont think stopping graffiti is like stopping art period, far from it. There are art galleries for a reason, there are actual legal places for you to graffiti even, if you find them. Or how about doing it on a giant canvas or something? However i never thought about graffiti being a way of making jobs for cleaners so they can feed their kids, that point I will take. However I will still not encourage it, it will be like encouraging people to commit more crimes so the police has jobs to do, thats morally wrong. Whats also morally wrong is FORCING people to look at your art, if its good it can be kept, if bad it can be removed (like the example you gave in indianapolis), for the 'having maybe never thought of putting art where it is' part, I am no genius but maybe it can be recommended to the council? How about that? Photoshopping the masterpiece on the wall then show the photoshopped picture to the council to see if they approve of it, if yes go ahead and do it, if not then don't bother. These 'positive spin' ideas if caught can be a severe problem, the graffiti artist could be fined for their action, or even jail time. It is vandalism as well as sometimes trespassing private property, it can be trouble. I don't think its worth it thats all.
So? Advertisements are exactly like graffiti - except they are bigger, uglier, and worst of all, legal. Why should some corporation get to shove their products in my face wherever I go? I didn't choose to see it. I would rather not. Why is graffiti vandalism, and billboards are acceptable? A billboard or an ad has never made a place more aesthetically appealing or thought provoking.
And in some areas they take away people's sketchbooks if they are bound in black or have sharpies with them. I have had this happen to me and even though upon inspection there was no graffiti art they refused to return my property. That my friend is against the law. It is also against the law to speculate that a person is planning to deface public property based on the artwork they make. There are a number of graffiti artists that work on paper only. No one is forcing anyone to look at artwork, public area or not. You don't have to stop and look at it just because its there. I guarantee there are all kinds of public art that is legal in your hometown that you miss on a daily basis. Graffiti has become a style and less of a crime. Just because it's not worth it as an artist to you doesn't mean you can condemn those who do. Some graffiti artists do their work simply for the thrill of getting caught. Its about putting your stamp on the world, regardless of legality. They know its going to get covered up either by a new tagger or the city its not the piece that matters its the process.
ok so u r saying the law is flawed. And the police suspected you of graffiti and therefore confiscated your sketchbook and sharpie and you got pissed off, well they are just trying to be safe though and just doing their job, in this case they guessed wrong but its just in case and its understandable from a policemen point of view. Also trust me, if the artist's goal isnt to force people to look at their work, they would've graffiti in their own house. Now lets say we follow your method of changing the law to semi legal for graffiti (That is the point I am getting here), do we allow the people to graffiti walls then let the art critique police come along and decide whether they want to keep it or not, if its good, let it stay, if its a bad, the person gets arrested? Law does not work based on whats pretty and whats not pretty though. This whole putting a stamp on the world can be achieved by not being a nuisance to the public though don't you agree? If you want to gain some attention and get your message out there, hey the internet is your playground, your message can be heard world wide and not just in your local area. Graffiti IS A CRIME god damn it, why is it so confusing to everyone i dont understand TvT' I did a quick google search and this is what it says in the Australian Institute of Criminology, I dont know if its the same in America but my guess is that its not legal there. here goes 'graffiti is defined as the marking of other people's property without their consent. In this context, graffiti is illegal and in Australia it is a persistent problem that attracts a variety of penalties.' Now hypothetically you have a kid and you find out the kid goes out at night doing graffiti, would you as a mother tell the kid to stop, or encourage him? Knowing full well it is illegal and if he gets caught he will be in big trouble.
well it IS kinda painting OVER some once other art most people don't seem to see it but most architecture is art itself and by painting on it you ruin art from some one els :'C but if its a tunnel or something very gray wall ad the side of a road made there because... there just needs to be something standing there I think its ok if some good graffiti artist can make something awesome out of it :'3 but not on houses and buildings thats just painting over some one once painting >:I