CreateDebate


Debate Info

81
82
Vandalism Art
Debate Score:163
Arguments:105
Total Votes:200
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Vandalism (51)
 
 Art (52)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(37423) pic



Graffiti - art or vandalism?

Vandalism

Side Score: 81
VS.

Art

Side Score: 82
4 points

Graffiti is vandalism because it is in a place in which it does not belong. If it was aplied to a canvas or wall, etc that was designated to be art then it would be art. What is art? That is what one has to decide once the canvas, wall, etc. dries.

Vandalism is defined as "Willful or malicious destruction of public or private property"

Side: Vandalism

If you woke up and found Graffiti on the front hood of your car and windshield, would you call it art or vandalism?

What about if it was the Mona Lisa on the hood and windshield of your car?

NOTE: Both will render the car undriveable.

What if it was on one of the (interior or exterior) house walls?

Side: Vandalism
5 points

If I catch one of those fucks I'd begin a most enjoyable torture schedule ever filmed in the history of mankind. It'll be streaming live on utube for as long as I decide to keep him!

First I'd remove each fingernail with my teeth, then I'd sterilize them with salt of course, you don't want them to fester and go smelly... then I'd ask him which hand he used to tag my car and if he didn't want to tell me immediately, i'd break a finger at the farthest joint. Once he kindly tells me the hand he used, I'd strip that hand of all of the skin and then set my pet rat (which i'd been starving for the purpose) on it... hmmm.. after that I should probably let him go back to his mother... he'd probably not draw anything for the rest of his life... shame though cos taggers have such potentials to be great artists...

Side: Vandalism

So I guess that it is safe to assume that you do not like taggers ;)

Side: Vandalism
krog96(5) Disputed
3 points

No one, not even the most obnoxious kid would spraypaint a windshield. You're obviously not speaking from experience.

Side: Art

I guess you are speaking from experience. OK, so lets say they spray paint the side door of your very expensive, very nice, brand spanking new (insert your favorite car model here) car. What then?

Side: Vandalism
2 points

It's ugly and obnoxious. Punks run around and add it all over the place. Nobody is safe.

Side: Vandalism
midget96(3) Disputed
1 point

Their just expressing themselves, are they hurting you? Look at banksy, how can you sit back and say that is ugly????

Side: Art

Art is very subjective. There are plenty of people that do not like Banksy nor Picasso.

Side: Art

If it is displayed on private or public property, it is clearly vandalism, and it is the destruction of that property. If they want art, then go draw like every other artist.

Side: Vandalism
2 points

To some graffiti is an art form worthy of display in galleries but for others it is merely vandalism. As graffiti can be done on any property, it is seldom considered an art form as it might be deemed to be destructing someone else's property. Furthermore, graffiti also contributes to certain illegal activities. One such example would be that graffiti is used as a gang signal to mark territory or serve as an indicator or "tag" for gang related activities. If graffiti is done on a specified platform with a positive purpose to it, it would be apppreciated as an art form. Till then, graffiti is still considered to be vandalism.

Side: Vandalism
2 points

ITS ART! BUT WHEN PEOPLE ABUSE IT AND PUT IT ON INAPROPIATE PLACES THEN ITS A PROBLEM.....

Side: Both
2 points

i think it is vandalism. I feel irate that people use graffiti as an excuse not to get a job

Side: Vandalism
2 points

There are different perspectives on vandalism; some believe it is a form of art that is expressed on the streets, while others believe it is dark and detestable, ruining the city (or towns) neat look. Although vandalism is not a violent crime, it is a violation of the law, yet graffiti artists continue to tag different places such as schools, houses, trains/trams and more.

“Vandalism” refers to illegally disfiguring private and public property with illegible handwriting or markings without the owner(s) consent. Removing such vandalism usually costs a substantial amount of money and is an irritation. At the same time, it costs train operators eleven million dollars a year. Vandalism on properties also decreases the value of whatever property was tagged. Some may say that graffiti artists tag properties because they want respect – but how do these “artists” get respect out of this if they have no respect for the possessions of others? It is destruction and the graffiti artist grasps nothing except more of an ego to do more illegal activities.

Side: Vandalism

graffiti can easily be considered as art, but as soon as you do it on a property that isn't your own, or you weren't allowed to paint on, it is vandalism. Vandalism is when you destroy something that isn't your own, and when you put paint on a wall that you don't own yourself, you are practically ruining it

Side: Vandalism
1 point

I hear people all the time try to excuse graffiti as art. But the truth is that it's vandalism and destruction of other people's property. Someone may like graffiti and consider it an art form. And they try to use the definition of art to excuse it. But those people are missing a major point about what art is. Art is created by commission or on the property the owner wants the art made on. Most graffiti is done without the consent or permission of the owner of which the graffiti appears on. The graffiti "artists" go where ever they want and destroy other people's property. I wouldn't want someone to tag up may walls of my building, just because it's their "self-expression\"... If I asked them to do so, then it's a different story. Why doesn't the graffiti "artists" do their work on canvas? Why do they need to tag public property? Self-expression isn't about destruction, it's about creation. Graffiti destroys. Go create graffiti and display it in a museum or an art show.

Side: Vandalism
1 point

Graffitti itself is not an art. Graffiti itself from what I know are just vulgar, crude and trashy words. But graffiti art is an art form born from graffiti techniques.

Of course sometimes there are meaningful phrases painted and sprayed in a beautiful way but more often than not its a joke.

Side: Vandalism
1 point

No i Think Graffiti Is Not Art , Why ? Because Its a Terrible Thing the thing people write on people Property , and they have to pay for it , its so wrong. Their Paying for People Believes WHat is stupid in my eyes. It Makes Places Look Like The Ghetto , Or a War Zone. People Might Be Scared to Live there.In my opinion I think that in most cases graffiti has no meaning and is pointless, it has no thought of consideration. To be honest I can only think of one graffiti 'artist' and that's Banksy this is mainly because he is the only one who adds a morale or political message. However, overall graffiti spoils a nice day out for lots of people... I would also like to add this survey is slightly unfair due to the fact the main people who disagree with graffiti are older and don't used the internet or if they do they don't use it for the use of completing surveysI hear people all the time try to excuse graffiti as art. But the truth is that it's vandalism and destruction of other people's property. Someone may like graffiti and consider it an art form. And they try to use the definition of art to excuse it. But those people are missing a major point about what art is. Art is created by commission or on the property the owner wants the art made on. Most graffiti is done without the consent or permission of the owner of which the graffiti appears on. The graffiti "artists" go where ever they want and destroy other people's property. I wouldn't want someone to tag up may walls of my building, just because it's their "self-expression\"... If I asked them to do so, then it's a different story. Why doesn't the graffiti "artists" do their work on canvas? Why do they need to tag public property? Self-expression isn't about destruction, it's about creation. Graffiti destroys. Go create graffiti and display it in a museum or an art show.

Side: Vandalism
1 point

Graffiti is illegal and shouldn't be done. If the person is so interested in painting on buildings and other property, they should do it on paper and murals. Then I would call it art. Doing something illegal should not be called artistic and beautiful in any way, shape or form. It is wrong and shouldn't be done. Everything beautiful should be right.Even if your Picasso graffitying on someobody elses land is not art and you shold not be able to do it! Its a waste of space and destroys beautiful buildings and landscapes! Sure it might look nice but its ruining beatiful places by pointless drawings! It is Not art at all!

Report Post

Like Reply08

Graffiti is not art, it's vandalism! I hear people all the time try to excuse graffiti as art. But the truth is that it's vandalism and destruction of other people's property. Someone may like graffiti and consider it an art form. And they try to use the definition of art to excuse it. But those people are missing a major point about what art is. Art is created by commission or on the property the owner wants the art made on. Most graffiti is done without the consent or permission of the owner of which the graffiti appears on. The graffiti "artists" go where ever they want and destroy other people's property. I wouldn't want someone to tag up may walls of my building, just because it's their "self-expression\"... If I asked them to do so, then it's a different story. Why doesn't the graffiti "artists" do their work on canvas? Why do they need to tag public property? Self-expression isn't about destruction, it's about creation. Graffiti destroys. Go create graffiti and display it in a museum or an art show.

Posted by: JohnValley Report Post

Like Reply Challenge14

Graffiti itself isn't really an art to me. Graffitti itself is not an art. Graffiti itself from what I know are just vulgar, crude and trashy words. But graffiti art is an art form born from graffiti techniques.

Of course sometimes there are meaningful phrases painted and sprayed in a beautiful way but more often than not its a joke.

Posted by: Wolfyy Report Post

Like Reply Challenge13

Graffiti Is Horriable No i Think Graffiti Is Not Art , Why ? Because Its a Terrible Thing the thing people write on people Property , and they have to pay for it , its so wrong. Their Paying for People Believes WHat is stupid in my eyes. It Makes Places Look Like The Ghetto , Or a War Zone. People Might Be Scared to Live there.

Report Post

Like Reply02

Yoooo its not art Graffitis not art because it is vandalism and it damages other peoples properties. Street art is acceptable because they always look nice and they have permission to do it. Most of the time graffiti is wrong and ussually vulgur. So thats why graffiti is not art because it is wrong.

Report Post

Like Reply02

Graffiti has no meaning! In my opinion I think that in most cases graffiti has no meaning and is pointless, it has no thought of consideration. To be honest I can only think of one graffiti 'artist' and that's Banksy this is mainly because he is the only one who adds a morale or political message. However, overall graffiti spoils a nice day out for lots of people... I would also like to add this survey is slightly unfair due to the fact the main people who disagree with graffiti are older and don't used the internet or if they do they don't use it for the use of completing surveys

Posted by: Peter12345 Report Post

Like Reply Challenge02

Scribbling is not art work Graffiti is the marking or defacing of another person’s property

without consent from the owner. It is different from street art, which is

an artistic work with permission from both the owner of the property

and the Council. As it is wilful damage, graffiti is a criminal offence

under theGraffiti Prevention Act 2007

Report Post

Like Reply02

Defacing other people's property Tagging property that is not yours in the name of art is just wrong. If graffiti artists want to express themselves they should do it in a constructive way that doesn't infringe on other people's property. Also if they think their work is art and someone else finds it trash the latter has no choice but to view it, it's there, in your face and unavoidable. Keep your art restricted to a canvas in a gallery where those that choose to view it will make an effort to find it. If the art is worthy, it will find an audience. If you must force your efforts on the public your "art" is seriously lacking merit.

Report Post

Like Reply01

Meaning of graffiti The google definition for graffiti is writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place. This exactly enplanes the meaning of graffiti and how it is most likely illegal, how it is vandalism and that it really isn't art. But say you were talking about "graffiti ART" that was not illegal and someone allowed the graffiti artist to spray random words o their building then that could be considered art but in other circumstances I would not consider it art.

Report Post

Like Reply01

Load More Arguments

Related Opinions

In a pluralist society, is censorship of the arts necessary?

Is reading fiction a waste of time?

Should the government censor the arts? Do you think its right that they do that?

If creationism can be taught at school, then evolution and the big bang can be taught in churches

Reading - Is it the new style trend?

Should video games be considered art?

Do you consider a novel a piece of art?

Did Shakespeare write the Elizabethan plays?

Is irony as an art form misunderstood by today's standards?

Do you think Graffiti Tagging is unfairly discriminated against?

Comments (8)

Leave a comment...

comment here...

(Maximum 900 words)

Anonymous says2013-09-10T19:34:38.477 Report Post

Graffiti art is totally fine, as long as it is done In the right places, people should be able to show off their art and personality.

swaggerrdaddy says2013-09-28T06:10:25.733 Report Post

Here is an article I wrote about the topic

http://www.Bubblews.Com/news/1074893-is-graffiti-an-art

Superdude200 says2016-03-21T13:19:01.403 Report Post

H h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h hh h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h hj h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h hh h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h hh h h h h h h hh h h h hh h h h hh h h h hh h h h h h h h h h h h h h h hh h h h h h h h h h h h hh hh hh h h h h hh h h h h h hhb hh h bh nbn bnnbn g b b njvf h f bh h bn n b nv nn n nn n n nb n b bnb n nb n bn mkx cjf fjb j b j jj f j jbjf jvjk bjj b jbj jb b b h h h h nn h ng b b b b b b b b b bb b v vb v nvn n bn bb nbm v nvmnbn bnb bn bn bn c nv nbcmkv djnvzc kn knc b,x mbn nn bn b n b n bn bnbn b n bn bn bn n bn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn n n v v v v vvvvv v v v v v vvv v ffvb vb gb gn nh hn gh b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b i think graffiti is art

Superdude200 says2016-03-21T13:19:10.343 Report Post

H h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h hh h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h hj h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h hh h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h hh h h h h h h hh h h h hh h h h hh h h h hh h h h h h h h h h h h h h h hh h h h h h h h h h h h hh hh hh h h h h hh h h h h h hhb hh h bh nbn bnnbn g b b njvf h f bh h bn n b nv nn n nn n n nb n b bnb n nb n bn mkx cjf fjb j b j jj f j jbjf jvjk bjj b jbj jb b b h h h h nn h ng b b b b b b b b b bb b v vb v nvn n bn bb nbm v nvmnbn bnb bn bn bn c nv nbcmkv djnvzc kn knc b,x mbn nn bn b n b n bn bnbn b n bn bn bn n bn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn n n v v v v vvvvv v v v v v vvv v ffvb vb gb gn nh hn gh b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b i think graffiti is art

Superdude200 says2016-03-21T13:19:47.037 Report Post

Sorry that was my little sister

Superdude200 says2016-03-21T13:20:48.767 Report Post

I agree with anonymous

Sandraharris says2016-04-20T11:34:10.427 Report Post

I find graffiti a wall art but nowise a vandalism. Vandalism is painting on the monuments, ruining public assets or ruining graves. More on the issue is available on here: http://bigessaywriter.com/blog/graffiti-wall-art-or-act-of-vandalism

Sandraharris says2016-04-20T11:34:43.063 Report Post

I find graffiti a wall art but nowise a vandalism. Vandalism is painting on the monuments, ruining public assets or ruining graves. More on the issue is available on here: http://bigessaywriter.com/blog/graffiti-wall-art-or-act-of-vandalism

Side: Vandalism
1 point

Earlier this month, at the opening of an exhibition dedicated to his work at Brisbane’s GOMA, David Lynch got stuck into street art, calling it “ugly, stupid, and threatening”. Apparently, shooting movies can be very difficult when the building you want to film is covered in graffiti and you don’t want it to be.

Is there a distinction between art and vandalism? This is the question that always seems to rise up when graffiti becomes a topic of conversation, as it has after Lynch’s outburst. This is, however, not just important for those of us who want to know the answers to obscure questions such as, “what is art?” It affects everyone.

mikkelz

Why? Because graffiti exists in our public spaces, our communities and our streets.

Let’s for a minute put aside the fact that an artist such as David Lynch, known for pushing the envelope in terms of what art is and can be, is criticising one type of art on the grounds that it is inconvenient to the kind of art that he prefers to undertake.

There is something more important to discuss here. The opinion that street art is vandalism (that is, not art) is widely held. Many people despise graffiti – but we are more than happy to line our public spaces with something much more offensive: advertising. That’s the bigger story here, the use and abuse of public space.t heart, I think this is why people don’t like graffiti. We see it as someone trying to take control of a part of our public space. The problem is, our public spaces are being sold out from under us anyway. If we don’t collectively protect our public spaces, we will lose them.

Two types of graffiti

I would like to make a bold distinction here.

I want to draw out the difference between two kinds of graffiti: street art and vandalism.

We need something to be able to differentiate between Banksy and the kids who draw neon dicks on the back of a bus shelter. They are different, and the difference lies in their intention.Tagging, the practice of writing your name or handle in prominent or impressive positions, is akin to a dog marking its territory; it’s a pissing contest. It is also an act of ownership. Genuine street art does not aim at ownership, but at capturing and sharing a concept. Street art adds to public discourse by putting something out into the world; it is the start of a conversation.

The ownership of a space that is ingrained in vandalism is not present in street art. In fact, street art has a way of opening up spaces as public. Street art has a way of inviting participation, something that too few public spaces are even capable of.

Marketing vandals

If vandalism is abhorrent because it attempts to own public space, then advertising is vandalism.

The billboards that line our streets, the banner ads on buses, the pop-ups on websites, the ads on our TVs and radios, buy and sell our public spaces. What longer lasting sex? A tasty beverage? To be young, beautiful, carefree, cutting edge, and happy? For only $24.95 (plus postage)!

Advertising privatises our public spaces. Ads are placed out in the public strategically. They are built to coerce, and manipulate. They affect us, whether we want them to or not. But this is not reciprocated.

We cannot in turn change or alter ads, nor can we communicate with the company who is doing the selling. If street art is the beginning of a conversation, advertising is the end. Stop talking, stop thinking – and buy these shoes!

Ads v graffiti

We are affronted by ads. They tell us we are not enough. Not good enough, not pretty enough, not wealthy enough.

At its worst, graffiti is mildly insulting and can be aesthetically immature. But at its best, it can be the opening of a communal space: a commentary, a conversation, a concept captured in an image on a wall. Genuine street art aims at this ideal.

Street art by Ghostpatrol in Brisbane. Paul Cunningham

At its best, advertising is an effective way of informing the public about products and services. At worst, advertising is a coercive, manipulative form of psychological warfare designed to trick us into buying crap we don’t need with money we don’t have.

What surprises me is that the people who find vandalism in the form of tagging and neon dicks highly offensive have no problem with the uncensored use of our public spaces for the purposes of selling stuff.

What art can do

If art is capable of anything in this world, it is cutting through the dross of everyday existence. Art holds up a mirror to the world so that we can see the absurdity of it. It shows us who we really are, both good and bad, as a community.

Ian Whitfield

Street art has an amazing ability to do this because it exists in our real and everyday world, not vacuum-sealed and shuffled away in a privileged private space. Its very public nature that makes street art unique, powerful, and amazing.

If we as a community can recognise the value in street art, we can begin to address it as a legitimate expression. When we value street art as art, we can engage with it as a community and help to grow it into something beautiful.

When street art has value, our neon dicks stop being a petty and adolescent attempt at ownership, and become mere vandalism. When we value our public spaces as places where the we can share experiences, we will start to see the violence that is advertising as clearly as the dick on the back of a bus shelter.

Side: Vandalism
1 point

Tagging, the practice of writing your name or handle in prominent or impressive positions, is akin to a dog marking its territory; it’s a pissing contest. It is also an act of ownership. Genuine street art does not aim at ownership, but at capturing and sharing a concept. Street art adds to public discourse by putting something out into the world; it is the start of a conversation.

The ownership of a space that is ingrained in vandalism is not present in street art. In fact, street art has a way of opening up spaces as public. Street art has a way of inviting participation, something that too few public spaces are even capable of.

Marketing vandals

If vandalism is abhorrent because it attempts to own public space, then advertising is vandalism.

The billboards that line our streets, the banner ads on buses, the pop-ups on websites, the ads on our TVs and radios, buy and sell our public spaces. What longer lasting sex? A tasty beverage? To be young, beautiful, carefree, cutting edge, and happy? For only $24.95 (plus postage)!

Advertising privatises our public spaces. Ads are placed out in the public strategically. They are built to coerce, and manipulate. They affect us, whether we want them to or not. But this is not reciprocated.

We cannot in turn change or alter ads, nor can we communicate with the company who is doing the selling. If street art is the beginning of a conversation, advertising is the end. Stop talking, stop thinking – and buy these shoes!

Ads v graffiti

We are affronted by ads. They tell us we are not enough. Not good enough, not pretty enough, not wealthy enough.

At its worst, graffiti is mildly insulting and can be aesthetically immature. But at its best, it can be the opening of a communal space: a commentary, a conversation, a concept captured in an image on a wall. Genuine street art aims at this ideal.

Street art by Ghostpatrol in Brisbane. Paul Cunningham

At its best, advertising is an effective way of informing the public about products and services. At worst, advertising is a coercive, manipulative form of psychological warfare designed to trick us into buying crap we don’t need with money we don’t have.

What surprises me is that the people who find vandalism in the form of tagging and neon dicks highly offensive have no problem with the uncensored use of our public spaces for the purposes of selling stuff.

What art can do

If art is capable of anything in this world, it is cutting through the dross of everyday existence. Art holds up a mirror to the world so that we can see the absurdity of it. It shows us who we really are, both good and bad, as a community.

Ian Whitfield

Street art has an amazing ability to do this because it exists in our real and everyday world, not vacuum-sealed and shuffled away in a privileged private space. Its very public nature that makes street art unique, powerful, and amazing.

If we as a community can recognise the value in street art, we can begin to address it as a legitimate expression. When we value street art as art, we can engage with it as a community and help to grow it into something beautiful.

When street art has value, our neon dicks stop being a petty and adolescent attempt at ownership, and become mere vandalism. When we value our public spaces as places where the we can share experiences, we will start to see the violence that is advertising as clearly as the dick on the back of a bus shelter.

Graffiti is illegal and shouldn't be done. If the person is so interested in painting on buildings and other property, they should do it on paper and murals. Then I would call it art. Doing something illegal should not be called artistic and beautiful in any way, shape or form. It is wrong and shouldn't be done. Everything beautiful should be right.

Posted by: Breeanna_Bear Report Post

Like Reply Challenge111

Graffiti is NOT art! Even if your Picasso graffitying on someobody elses land is not art and you shold not be able to do it! Its a waste of space and destroys beautiful buildings and landscapes! Sure it might look nice but its ruining beatiful places by pointless drawings! It is Not art at all!

Report Post

Like Reply08

Graffiti is not art, it's vandalism! I hear people all the time try to excuse graffiti as art. But the truth is that it's vandalism and destruction of other people's property. Someone may like graffiti and consider it an art form. And they try to use the definition of art to excuse it. But those people are missing a major point about what art is. Art is created by commission or on the property the owner wants the art made on. Most graffiti is done without the consent or permission of the owner of which the graffiti appears on. The graffiti "artists" go where ever they want and destroy other people's property. I wouldn't want someone to tag up may walls of my building, just because it's their "self-expression\"... If I asked them to do so, then it's a different story. Why doesn't the graffiti "artists" do their work on canvas? Why do they need to tag public property? Self-expression isn't about destruction, it's about creation. Graffiti destroys. Go create graffiti and display it in a museum or an art show.

Posted by: JohnValley Report Post

Like Reply Challenge14

Graffiti itself isn't really an art to me. Graffitti itself is not an art. Graffiti itself from what I know are just vulgar, crude and trashy words. But graffiti art is an art form born from graffiti techniques.

Of course sometimes there are meaningful phrases painted and sprayed in a beautiful way but more often than not its a joke.

Posted by: Wolfyy Report Post

Like Reply Challenge13

Graffiti Is Horriable No i Think Graffiti Is Not Art , Why ? Because Its a Terrible Thing the thing people write on people Property , and they have to pay for it , its so wrong. Their Paying for People Believes WHat is stupid in my eyes. It Makes Places Look Like The Ghetto , Or a War Zone. People Might Be Scared to Live there.

Report Post

Like Reply02

Yoooo its not art Graffitis not art because it is vandalism and it damages other peoples properties. Street art is acceptable because they always look nice and they have permission to do it. Most of the time graffiti is wrong and ussually vulgur. So thats why graffiti is not art because it is wrong.

Report Post

Like Reply02

Graffiti has no meaning! In my opinion I think that in most cases graffiti has no meaning and is pointless, it has no thought of consideration. To be honest I can only think of one graffiti 'artist' and that's Banksy this is mainly because he is the only one who adds a morale or political message. However, overall graffiti spoils a nice day out for lots of people... I would also like to add this survey is slightly unfair due to the fact the main people who disagree with graffiti are older and don't used the internet or if they do they don't use it for the use of completing surveys

Posted by: Peter12345 Report Post

Like Reply Challenge02

Scribbling is not art work Graffiti is the marking or defacing of another person’s property

without consent from the owner. It is different from street art, which is

an artistic work with permission from both the owner of the property

and the Council. As it is wilful damage, graffiti is a criminal offence

under theGraffiti Prevention Act 2007

Report Post

Like Reply02

Defacing other people's property Tagging property that is not yours in the name of art is just wrong. If graffiti artists want to express themselves they should do it in a constructive way that doesn't infringe on other people's property. Also if they think their work is art and someone else finds it trash the latter has no choice but to view it, it's there, in your face and unavoidable. Keep your art restricted to a canvas in a gallery where those that choose to view it will make an effort to find it. If the art is worthy, it will find an audience. If you must force your efforts on the public your "art" is seriously lacking merit.

Report Post

Like Reply01

Meaning of graffiti The google definition for graffiti is writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place. This exactly enplanes the meaning of graffiti and how it is most likely illegal, how it is vandalism and that it really isn't art. But say you were talking about "graffiti ART" that was not illegal and someone allowed the graffiti artist to spray random words o their building then that could be considered art but in other circumstances I would not consider it art.

Side: Vandalism
1 point

Graffiti is illegal and shouldn't be done. If the person is so interested in painting on buildings and other property, they should do it on paper and murals. Then I would call it art. Doing something illegal should not be called artistic and beautiful in any way, shape or form. It is wrong and shouldn't be done. Everything beautiful should be right.

Posted by: Breeanna_Bear Report Post

Like Reply Challenge111

Graffiti is NOT art! Even if your Picasso graffitying on someobody elses land is not art and you shold not be able to do it! Its a waste of space and destroys beautiful buildings and landscapes! Sure it might look nice but its ruining beatiful places by pointless drawings! It is Not art at all!

Report Post

Like Reply08

Graffiti is not art, it's vandalism! I hear people all the time try to excuse graffiti as art. But the truth is that it's vandalism and destruction of other people's property. Someone may like graffiti and consider it an art form. And they try to use the definition of art to excuse it. But those people are missing a major point about what art is. Art is created by commission or on the property the owner wants the art made on. Most graffiti is done without the consent or permission of the owner of which the graffiti appears on. The graffiti "artists" go where ever they want and destroy other people's property. I wouldn't want someone to tag up may walls of my building, just because it's their "self-expression\"... If I asked them to do so, then it's a different story. Why doesn't the graffiti "artists" do their work on canvas? Why do they need to tag public property? Self-expression isn't about destruction, it's about creation. Graffiti destroys. Go create graffiti and display it in a museum or an art show.

Posted by: JohnValley Report Post

Like Reply Challenge14

Graffiti itself isn't really an art to me. Graffitti itself is not an art. Graffiti itself from what I know are just vulgar, crude and trashy words. But graffiti art is an art form born from graffiti techniques.

Of course sometimes there are meaningful phrases painted and sprayed in a beautiful way but more often than not its a joke.

Posted by: Wolfyy Report Post

Like Reply Challenge13

Graffiti Is Horriable No i Think Graffiti Is Not Art , Why ? Because Its a Terrible Thing the thing people write on people Property , and they have to pay for it , its so wrong. Their Paying for People Believes WHat is stupid in my eyes. It Makes Places Look Like The Ghetto , Or a War Zone. People Might Be Scared to Live there.

Report Post

Like Reply02

Yoooo its not art Graffitis not art because it is vandalism and it damages other peoples properties. Street art is acceptable because they always look nice and they have permission to do it. Most of the time graffiti is wrong and ussually vulgur. So thats why graffiti is not art because it is wrong.

Report Post

Like Reply02

Graffiti has no meaning! In my opinion I think that in most cases graffiti has no meaning and is pointless, it has no thought of consideration. To be honest I can only think of one graffiti 'artist' and that's Banksy this is mainly because he is the only one who adds a morale or political message. However, overall graffiti spoils a nice day out for lots of people... I would also like to add this survey is slightly unfair due to the fact the main people who disagree with graffiti are older and don't used the internet or if they do they don't use it for the use of completing surveys

Posted by: Peter12345 Report Post

Like Reply Challenge02

Scribbling is not art work Graffiti is the marking or defacing of another person’s property

without consent from the owner. It is different from street art, which is

an artistic work with permission from both the owner of the property

and the Council. As it is wilful damage, graffiti is a criminal offence

under theGraffiti Prevention Act 2007

Report Post

Like Reply02

Defacing other people's property Tagging property that is not yours in the name of art is just wrong. If graffiti artists want to express themselves they should do it in a constructive way that doesn't infringe on other people's property. Also if they think their work is art and someone else finds it trash the latter has no choice but to view it, it's there, in your face and unavoidable. Keep your art restricted to a canvas in a gallery where those that choose to view it will make an effort to find it. If the art is worthy, it will find an audience. If you must force your efforts on the public your "art" is seriously lacking merit.

Report Post

Like Reply01

Meaning of graffiti The google definition for graffiti is writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place. This exactly enplanes the meaning of graffiti and how it is most likely illegal, how it is vandalism and that it really isn't art. But say you were talking about "graffiti ART" that was not illegal and someone allowed the graffiti artist to spray random words o their building then that could be considered art but in other circumstances I would not consider it art.

Side: Vandalism
1 point

Graffiti is illegal and shouldn't be done. If the person is so interested in painting on buildings and other property, they should do it on paper and murals. Then I would call it art. Doing something illegal should not be called artistic and beautiful in any way, shape or form. It is wrong and shouldn't be done. Everything beautiful should be right.

Posted by: Breeanna_Bear Report Post

Like Reply Challenge111

Graffiti is NOT art! Even if your Picasso graffitying on someobody elses land is not art and you shold not be able to do it! Its a waste of space and destroys beautiful buildings and landscapes! Sure it might look nice but its ruining beatiful places by pointless drawings! It is Not art at all!

Report Post

Like Reply08

Graffiti is not art, it's vandalism! I hear people all the time try to excuse graffiti as art. But the truth is that it's vandalism and destruction of other people's property. Someone may like graffiti and consider it an art form. And they try to use the definition of art to excuse it. But those people are missing a major point about what art is. Art is created by commission or on the property the owner wants the art made on. Most graffiti is done without the consent or permission of the owner of which the graffiti appears on. The graffiti "artists" go where ever they want and destroy other people's property. I wouldn't want someone to tag up may walls of my building, just because it's their "self-expression\"... If I asked them to do so, then it's a different story. Why doesn't the graffiti "artists" do their work on canvas? Why do they need to tag public property? Self-expression isn't about destruction, it's about creation. Graffiti destroys. Go create graffiti and display it in a museum or an art show.

Posted by: JohnValley Report Post

Like Reply Challenge14

Graffiti itself isn't really an art to me. Graffitti itself is not an art. Graffiti itself from what I know are just vulgar, crude and trashy words. But graffiti art is an art form born from graffiti techniques.

Of course sometimes there are meaningful phrases painted and sprayed in a beautiful way but more often than not its a joke.

Posted by: Wolfyy Report Post

Like Reply Challenge13

Graffiti Is Horriable No i Think Graffiti Is Not Art , Why ? Because Its a Terrible Thing the thing people write on people Property , and they have to pay for it , its so wrong. Their Paying for People Believes WHat is stupid in my eyes. It Makes Places Look Like The Ghetto , Or a War Zone. People Might Be Scared to Live there.

Report Post

Like Reply02

Yoooo its not art Graffitis not art because it is vandalism and it damages other peoples properties. Street art is acceptable because they always look nice and they have permission to do it. Most of the time graffiti is wrong and ussually vulgur. So thats why graffiti is not art because it is wrong.

Report Post

Like Reply02

Graffiti has no meaning! In my opinion I think that in most cases graffiti has no meaning and is pointless, it has no thought of consideration. To be honest I can only think of one graffiti 'artist' and that's Banksy this is mainly because he is the only one who adds a morale or political message. However, overall graffiti spoils a nice day out for lots of people... I would also like to add this survey is slightly unfair due to the fact the main people who disagree with graffiti are older and don't used the internet or if they do they don't use it for the use of completing surveys

Posted by: Peter12345 Report Post

Like Reply Challenge02

Scribbling is not art work Graffiti is the marking or defacing of another person’s property

without consent from the owner. It is different from street art, which is

an artistic work with permission from both the owner of the property

and the Council. As it is wilful damage, graffiti is a criminal offence

under theGraffiti Prevention Act 2007

Report Post

Like Reply02

Defacing other people's property Tagging property that is not yours in the name of art is just wrong. If graffiti artists want to express themselves they should do it in a constructive way that doesn't infringe on other people's property. Also if they think their work is art and someone else finds it trash the latter has no choice but to view it, it's there, in your face and unavoidable. Keep your art restricted to a canvas in a gallery where those that choose to view it will make an effort to find it. If the art is worthy, it will find an audience. If you must force your efforts on the public your "art" is seriously lacking merit.

Report Post

Like Reply01

Meaning of graffiti The google definition for graffiti is writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place. This exactly enplanes the meaning of graffiti and how it is most likely illegal, how it is vandalism and that it really isn't art. But say you were talking about "graffiti ART" that was not illegal and someone allowed the graffiti artist to spray random words o their building then that could be considered art but in other circumstances I would not consider it art.

Side: Vandalism
1 point

Well, it's both. But I voted on the vandalism side because no matter how clever or beautiful your graffiti art happens to be you still put it on something someone else owns and wanted to be some other way than you made it. You could express art onto a canvas instead. There is no reason you have to put it on the side of your house.

The exception is political speech in times of serious political disagreement.

But I'll also add that I don't think it should be a major crime. Fines combined with paying for cleanup or cleaning it up themselves should be sufficient.

Side: Vandalism

....................................Vandalism.........................................

Side: Vandalism
5 points

I believe in freedom, and I would just laugh if my car got graffitied (if I had a car).

Side: Art
FredCDobbs(79) Disputed
3 points

What if they wrote (no offense) 'Arataii is a slut' all over your house? Would you laugh?

Side: Vandalism
arataii(95) Disputed
3 points

Actually I probably would laugh, I have a weird sense of humor... then I would go and graffiti their house. I believe in revenge.

Side: Art
NVYN(289) Disputed
1 point

freedom... what freedom are you speaking of? The freedom to damage other people's property? I don't remember it being one of the articles in the UDHR... must have missed it...

Side: Vandalism
Repulser1234(1) Disputed
1 point

Graffiti is art! It is only illegal if it is done on people property but is it really a problem?

Side: Art
3 points

If the maker of the graffiti work considers herself an artist, it is art. If you consider art as that product was is deliberately made with the intention to affect senses and emotions, then graffiti that is intended as art should be considered as art.

The starting point is the artist and the subjective experience of humans. Then, if someone considers graffiti vandalism (because they feel their wall is vandalized) it doesn't make it vandalism.

Supporting Evidence: "Fountain" (Duchamp) (en.flossmanuals.net)
Side: Art
0 points

I think you got it a little backwards, if someone considers their graffiti art (because they are on drugs or just plain stupid) then it doesn't make it art. ;)

Side: Vandalism
jannamarieke(28) Disputed
2 points

No i did not get in backwards.

- First, being on drugs does not disproves someone being an artist. Many artists are on drugs. Picasso, Pollack, Dali, Warhol all used drugs. Would you deny they were artists?

- Second, that's beside the point. Graffiti can be art and can be plain vandalism, depending on the purpose of the maker. If you want to define art by it's purpose and not by it's reception you must admit that graffiti is sometimes art. And i believe it is by it's purpose only we can define whether something is art.

Two examples: 1. some decorative item X that is produced without any intention of being art, but is defined as art by the buyer is no art.

2. some object Y that is made as an artwork by the maker (with the intention of causing effect in senses and mind) but is not (immediately) widely recognized as art is still art. Van Gogh for example was only recognized as an artist after he died. Was his work no art?

Side: Art
krog96(5) Disputed
2 points

i dont agree, plus, using words like stupid in a public debate makes you sound unintelligent. I've seen yourarguments in multiple debates, and you have some very... "old school" views

Side: Art
arugmental(1) Disputed
1 point

no...no...your defintly wrong if you something is art in your eyes itmay well be art in someone else. just because u dnt like something does make it any less of an art work

Side: Art
3 points

It really depends, I have seen amazing graffiti done on walls and in subway stations. Gang signs and slanderous garbage I would call vandalism. However, just the other day I took a short cut down an alley and saw an amazing dreaded up lion, that was quite illegal and quite breath taking. I would call some art and some vandalism.

Side: Both

What if they had painted that "amazing dreaded up lion" on the front of your house?

Side: Vandalism
2 points

I think graffiti is an art if it is done in an appropriate place. Some peices are beautiful and some are not

Side: Art
2 points

Graffiti as in gang sighs are vandalism, but those large sculpture looking things I see as Art. :O

Side: Art
KatieMarie(288) Disputed
0 points

How do you see art in pieces of twisted metal? You may see art work but i see scrap metal that will bring in a pretty penny in a junk yard.

Side: Vandalism
abusedmule(7) Disputed
1 point

... Ever watch the show ``Junk raiders``? They make old storage places into fully functional apartments, and make everything out of trash/`junk`.

They make awesome stuff with that.

I also saw a piece just this week on daily planet where some scrap metal artists make, a mechanical bull, and even a DJ booth. The DJ boot had features on it such as a few water fountains with lazer lights going trough it, and pyrotechnics. It all went with the beat of the music.

Made it all in one weekend.

Was amazing.

If you don`t see art in something like that, then.... Wow...

Side: Art

I don't like when people do it for gangs, but graffiti can be used for advertising. I consider it art because it's not always vandalism. Some people use it for bad ways, but many, also, use it to show off their products.

Side: Art
NVYN(289) Disputed
1 point

By all means use the proper medium for the art. Don't tag on people's property without permission.

Side: Vandalism
brycer2012(1001) Disputed
2 points

Some people use it as a form of advertisement, as I said in my post. It's not always done without permission.

Side: Art
1 point

I think it all depends on what and what they put on it.

Some of the graffiti on trains are beautifull. Even if some are just words. The colours, design, everything about a few of them, is so pretty.

Though if it were on something like a bathroom stall, desk, building, sign, ect... I guess that would be a bad thing, no matter how nice it is. Especially if it is something crude, profane, ect...

But i think appropriate and tastefull graffiti is something that birghtens my day and probably puts a smile on peoples faces.

Side: Both

Just because something is pretty does not make it art.

What if that wolf was painted on your property, house, car, etc.?

Side: Vandalism
arugmental(1) Disputed
2 points

well honestly many people like me like wolves in fact i wound not mind if someone did paint a wolf on my house, car or property it would make the object diffrent it's like getting art or free

Side: Art
abusedmule(7) Disputed
1 point

That`s why I put at the begining of my post that it all depended on where it was placed.

If it was on someone`s house, a store, ect... Then it`s not alright.

But maybe abandoned places, or buildings where it`s permitted by the owner to do so is alright.

and if something was painted on my shed, I`d be fine with it. Maybe not my house... Because it`s a bit odd to picture something like graffiti on a house and have it look good. But yeah...

D`: I mean pretty as in difficulty, great colour coordination, and technicality.

Side: Both
1 point

Graffiti is just expressing yourself. So technaquly it is art. In some places people pay for graffiti because of the art behind it. So in my opinion it is art.

Side: Art

That's all well and good except that a cop would disagree with you and haul your ass to jail for putting up art on private property. ;)

Side: Vandalism
1 point

There are the people who say 'Vandalism! It looks shit!'. They are the type who could see a Van Gogh piece on canvas in a museum and think 'Wow! The brush strokes, this is amazing, so beautiful!', then see it on the wall outside and turn their stuck-up noses up at it.

Then there are those who say 'Both, it is a piece of art which is inappropriately placed on someone else's property'. These people are smart, open-mined individuals who know what they're talking about. Some may say 'Yes, but what if its badly drawn', well as you probably know art is based on opinion. I for one think Picasso's drawings look like shit, and wouldn't pay £5 for one, but there are people who are prepared to pay millions.

Side: Art

The problem with keeping an open mind is that if you keep it too open, your brains fall out ;)

Side: Vandalism
1 point

You cant really classify Graffiti as art or vandalism....... when you see tags on trains, bus stops and signs then you can see that as vandalism. You can see graffiti as art, when its down sides of buildings out of the way of everything, and its pictures of people, and has meaning to it.

Side: Both

If it is not commissioned, and it is on private property, it's vandalism. I am also tempted to say that if it isn't commissioned, it's not art. It is only art when someone pays for it. Otherwise I can wipe my ass with toilet paper, save it, and call it art.... when in reality it's crap ;)

Side: Vandalism
1 point

graffiti is a type of art. it involves hellla skills and intelegence.

Side: Art

Skills like keeping an eye out for the cops. Intelligence to keep you from getting caught ;)

Side: Vandalism
1 point

If the maker of the graffiti work considers herself an artist, it is art. If you consider art as that product was is deliberately made with the intention to affect senses and emotions, then graffiti that is intended as art should be considered as art.

The starting point is the artist and the subjective experience of humans. Then, if someone considers graffiti vandalism (because they feel their wall is vandalized) it doesn't make it vandalism.

Side: Art

Maybe people who get arrested for graffiti should try and use your argument to see if they get set free ;)

Side: Art

Its art, but art can be vandalism.

Side: Art

Art doesn't even have to be drawn. Music is art. Those sound waves are everywhere. Statues are works of art. Graffiti is just paint. If you hate it so much then buy a huge canvas for them and go relax.

Side: Art
1 point

I think its Art !

why , simply because most people who do "vandalism" are people with serious

talent at making a good work of art ... while others may think its vandalism because some people just do it for from & don't actually know how to do it

Side: Art
1 point

As long as it is pg and on public property. I think it should be legal. I mean come on, imagine a dragon (get it? you know, the pun?. uh, nevermind) Imagine a dragon on a train car. They look so cool. Also it doesn't hurt anyone if it isn't inappropriate and it's on public property.

Side: Art
1 point

I stand in this position because it can send a message to all the young kids and as stated in some articles "The walls are speaking to me" some of the younger kids have stated... It reaches out to them and says something to them and it can help when you are trying to spread the word about something important...

Side: Art
0 points

If it's on the side of an old building that noone uses,(which in my area it usually is), then it's art. It's youth expressing themselves to the world. Some may argue, "It's just angry teens", but, so what? THat's a good thing. If teenagers can relieve themselves of anger by spraypaint, instead of hurting people, or drugs ; then I say we encourage it!~

Side: Art

Why can't they relieve themselves by masturbating like all the other teens ;)

Side: Vandalism
1 point

Some people (like me) like to express themselves in more appropriate ways. When i'm angry i go to the studio and vent in a microphone, put a beat behind it, and it becomes music. When im happy i play and write pieces of music for my saxophone. I never "just say me' that's against all i believe in.

Side: Vandalism
jannamarieke(28) Disputed
1 point

Because sometimes it is art and contains and idea that is better expressed by graffiti than masturbating. See for yourself on the the link below

Supporting Evidence: here (www.xa-xa.org)
Side: Art
2 points

I've been following his, or at least i think its a he, for several months now. I love 'his' work. I really wish we knew who the person was, not who they think he is. But then again he would be arrested for art terrorism if we knew who he was. Art terrorism? Hmmm..... that's a weird reason for a warrant. lolz

Side: Art
NVYN(289) Disputed
1 point

Talented artists should use a proper medium for the art so budding junior artists could follow their lead. Their talent puts them in a position of leadership whether they like it or not, and they should use this position to influence others for good. What's wrong with hiring out a gallery and setting it up to look just like the ghetto walls on the street?

Side: Vandalism
PungSviti(552) Disputed
1 point

well for some that works just fine but I think if Banksy did that it would all look a bit to preppy and boring. Context matters, and sometimes doing art in the street has that extra context that gives the work edge.

Dont get me wrong. I dont like 90% of graffiti. (come to think of it, I dont like 90% of art gallery art either)

Side: Art
1 point

If he were to put this crap on the side of my house, I would have him arrested and hopefully sent to Guantanamo Bay for vandalism and then have him water boarded ;)

Side: Vandalism
PungSviti(552) Disputed
3 points

If he would put his "crap" on the side of my house I would sell it for twice the money it was worth before.

I guess you are not a buisness man

Side: Art
PungSviti(552) Disputed
1 point

That still wouldnt be the sillyest reason someone has been waterboarded by the American Government.

Side: Art
-1 points

99.9% of it is absolute garbage and the perpetrators should be put in prison.

However the sheer beauty of the .1% more than makes up for the rest. I wouldn't wish for a world without graffiti if it meant losing that.

Still, most of it does suck.

Side: Art
1 point

I agree.

I love when a train passes by and you see a few really wonderful designs people have come yup with, and even colours.

Or like, I remember this on place where a person graffiti`d a really amazing picture of a wolf. The colours and composition was so awesome.

Definitely makes up for the tons of crappy ones.

Side: Art

Just because something is pretty does not make it art.

What if that wolf was painted on your property, house, car, etc.?

Side: Vandalism