Some cases art, some cases vandalism.

I guess some could be classed as art but the graffitti round here is usually racist/offensive or it's someones name and the year scribbled a hundred times over a bus stop/lampost in terrible handwriting, so it's vandalism. It depends on the form and context of the graffiti.

Depends, Sometimes Art.

If it's a wall full of graffiti, then I consider it art. If it's graffiti that says "Shit", "Bitch" or whatever repulsive, then I consider it vandalism. It's really hard to say. If it's graffiti that allows you to step back and look at it in a different perspective and makes you really think, then that's what I consider as art.

Hope that made sense

its art
there are walls filled with murals
and other filled with pieces
its vandalism in all cases unless the person had permission
only toys mark walls with obscenities

You need another option on the poll because i think it depends on form/context.

its art. i think people show how they feel about something unless its offensive in some way which still shows how they feel about something thought i wouldnt consider it art.

its art. i think people show how they feel about something unless its offensive in some way which still shows how they feel about something thought i wouldnt consider it art.

but thats still art

It really depends on which way you look at it.
Art is supposed to be a way to express yourself, so even writing things that may seem offensive is still expressive, so is that art? Yes, it's art, but it's an unwanted form of art. No one ever said all art was liked.

Art is supposed to be a way to express yourself, so even writing things that may seem offensive is still expressive, so is that art? Yes, it's art, but it's an unwanted form of art. No one ever said all art was liked.

so the artist doesn't like his/her own art?
even if its 'unwanted' it can still be admire

I think it depends. If it's done properly and a full piece, then it's art.

If it's like cocks drawn everywhere or I WOZ HERE, then it's vandalism.

coolchrisVV2 wrote:

so the artist doesn't like his/her own art?
even if its 'unwanted' it can still be admire

I mean't that it's unwanted by everyone else, not the artist.

Yeah, it can still be admired I guess but if someone wrote all over my fence or house, I wouldn't admire it!

graffiti is art

I mean't that it's unwanted by everyone else, not the artist.

Yeah, it can still be admired I guess but if someone wrote all over my fence or house, I wouldn't admire it!

real artist wouldn't do that
artist that have self respect and respect for there work

Not all graffiti is art, some of is just stupid names or offensive words scribbled in a black marker pen, that's vandalism. Obviously the big pictures which take time and effort could be classified as art but it completley depends upon the form of it.

its always vandalism, unless they had permission.
its not always art, unless it is performed as such and received as that as well

I think it's vandalism. Yes, it may be artwork, but above all it's vandalism graffiti.

It doesn't matter if it's a big mural, because if it was some dude that came up and did it without permission it doesn't matter if it's art or not, because it's vandalism.

Of course, the only kind I know is the graffiti in east St. Louis put up on all the buildings with all their gang signs and other dumb shit. As you can see I'm against it.

so then this thread is sort of pointless?