Graffiti

This really shouldn't bother me, but it does. Someone was pretty much denying graffiti as an art form. These are my thoughts: 


First off, yes it is a form of art. Just like painting, drawing, animation, performance art, earth art, even tattooing. Street art (graffiti) is an art form. Just because society has taught you that art can only be seen in a gallery does not make it pure vandalism. 


It is sad that not everyone can appreciate it's true potential. What is wrong with using the city as a canvas? Why are we restricted to paper? Why is it ok to dig up mounds of dirt, and place it somewhere and call that art, but not graffiti (See image below)?





Why isn't this art? (See Below)





Why is art on the ground ok, but when it's on a wall the world goes to hell?





If Monet, or Picasso came and painted on a wall would that still be considered vandalism? It is so hard to get your work into a gallery, or even to make sure it is viewed online. Graffiti is a way you can show your work to the world. The artists' intent is for the world to see his/her work and who are we to deny them that? 

"Indeed the issues of location and presentation are the most significant obstacles to a wholehearted acceptance of spraycan art as art. Graffiti art cannot be disregarded simply because it is not presented in the conventional location and manner, i.e., framed and placed in a museum or gallery. The location of it on a wall or subway without permission only makes it unsolicited art. As such, it can be called vandalism, but again, this does not disqualify it as art."

  I don't see why painting a wall is a problem. I'd much rather look at graffiti than a brick wall. I can agree that the artists should get permission before painting property that isn't their own. But I also think that society should not discredit these artists for showing their talent/work. 

"... some forms of graffiti become art according to four criteria. First, graffiti art is separated from everyday graffiti markings by the artist's intention to produce a work of art. Second, graffiti art has an established history of development in style and technique. Third, graffiti art even has been recognized by the art world. A fourth criterion is that the public response to graffiti art indicates that it is art. Whether or not all of the public agrees that graffiti art is good, bad, or extremely valuable is a different discussion about evaluation and not whether or not graffiti art is art. The evaluative concerns actually play more into where, when, and how graffiti art should be displayed."

Graffiti should be considered an art. You don't have to like it. But you cannot deny that it can be used as an art form. Just like you don't have to like Picasso's work. But you cannot deny that what he does is art.


Quotes Source