CreateDebate


Debate Info

39
36
Yes No
Debate Score:75
Arguments:64
Total Votes:83
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (31)
 
 No (30)

Debate Creator

jonathangoh(1726) pic



Is graffiti art?

Yes

Side Score: 39
VS.

No

Side Score: 36
4 points

I have no problem with graffiti at all.

I think it's wonderful art, and I always enjoy it when I see it. I'm not sure what the deal is with vandalism, I couldn't care less.

I'm not the sort to make the graffiti, but eh, I don't mind it. If it's well done and looks good, then I support it completely, especially if there's a cool message behind it.

Side: Yes

As ugly as it can be (art isn't supposed to be pretty), graffiti is one of most honest and pure forms of expression out there. It's bold, it's to the point, and if often reflects what's going on in a society. While Town Hall will always dress everything up to put its best foot forward, graffiti will tell you what's really going on. It my be so crass as "We fucked here". But then you know that people still feel uninhibited enough to fuck outdoors, which tells you something about how they feel about their environment.

It also says that they couldn't afford a hotel room.... so maybe the economy's a little tight. And since they were able to fuck outdoors and then spray paint about it afterward, there isn't much concern about the intrusion of Police. So, maybe they don't enough (or have just enough) officers on the street.

Sometimes, I'll be walking through a rough area of town. And I'll see the proverbial "we fucked here". And I just kind of think "awww..... At least this place is special to someone."

Side: Yes
0 points

Graffiti is vandalism. It is not art. When has it ever become art? People get caught for doing graffiti

Side: No
nummi(1432) Disputed
3 points

It is art. The only problem is where they do and on what.

Side: Yes
1 point

Then, what you're really debating is a question of property not art? Do I have the right to commission the Mona Lisa to be painted on the side of the Sears Tower? No, because I don't own the Sears tower? But what if I said "come paint on the side of my house. Paint anything you want. Tell me to fuck off if you want to". Is that graffiti? So, what we're really talking about is who owns the canvass? In a lot of cases, we see underpasses, schools, etc. (public property). You have the right to stake up a sign that advertisies your business on public right away, but I don't have the right to put a sign that says "Cops are all bastards"? What's that about? Or is it a case of not knowing who painted the graffiti? If they signed, their work would you be satisfied? The truth is I don't think you're talking about art. I don't think you'd recognize art if you saw it.

Side: Yes
1 point

if art is expressing yourself artistically than yes graffiti is art. does that mean I approve of graffiti? no, but its still art. Just because its vandalism doesn't mean its not art. in fact i would say the fact that its vandalism actually makes it MORE of an art because its not being made for money its being made purely to show distaste towards what your writing on, which is expressing feelings with a form of writing/painting.

Side: Yes
bigboy(63) Disputed
1 point

I still think graffiti is vandalism. If you like graffiti so much and you dont wannna be caught them vandalise your own homes. At least it will look more pleasing

Side: No
vandebater(444) Disputed
0 points

it is vandalism, and its not right and i don't approve but by definition it is still art......

Side: Yes

For anyone still on the fence about whether graffiti is art or not.

I got one word for you:

Banksy

Google him

Side: Yes
1 point

Absolutely yes. Graffiti is unquestionably an art form, and can be quite creative and beautiful. It draws a negative response from its association with gang tagging, from which it originated, however it has developed considerably from those origins and it truly is an art that requires practice and skill.

Doubters, check this:

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/09/ 14/tribute-to-graffiti-50-beautiful-graffiti-artworks/

Side: Yes
1 point

Graffiti is unquestionably an art form

NO PROOF

it truly is an art that requires practice and skill

graffiti is vandalism. No practice or skill needed. Just anyhow move your brush or spray paint.

Side: No
Jace(5222) Disputed
1 point

NO PROOF

Art is a subjectively defined field. In my opinion, if it requires creativity and application then it is art. There are people who make livings as graffiti artists; that is their title. You may not like the art form but it is still art.

Graffiti is vandalism. No practice or skill needed. Just anyhow move your brush or spray paint.

Did you even follow the link I provided? I would like to see you try to do any of that. You also clearly did not even read my post - I explained that graffiti originated as vandalism and gang tagging but that it has evolved. You have a very narrow view what constitutes graffiti.

Furthermore, a number of graffiti artists request to use space or are actually hired to do their art on buildings or walls.

Side: Yes

Art is not bound by the rules of society or morals, since these can change at any given moment. For instance, if in one country it is illegal to paint with the color purple, does that make certain paintings not art, since they collide with the laws of society? No.

The illegality of Graffiti does not take away its artistic values.

Art has many definitions, but in its broadest sense, it is the expression of man.

And people are expressing themselves with Graffiti.

So, regardless on whether it is morally right or not, by the definition of art, it is art.

Side: Yes

Graffiti is merely a medium for art. Unfortunately, most people who use graffiti do it as vandalism either intentionally or unintentionally.

Side: Yes
1 point

There was an art exhibition which included "invisible" art.

If that is considered art, as much as randomly splattering colours on a board, then why shouldn't Graffiti be art?

Side: Yes
1 point

yes it is

not every one can draw on the streets graffiti that's why it considered as art

Side: Yes
1 point

not every one can draw on the streets graffiti that's why it considered as art

NOBODY can draw on the streets

Side: No
1 point

Of Course Graffiti is an art! Its a skill! It creates a whole new side to art

Side: Yes
1 point

Its a skill!

huh? graffiti's a skill?

It creates a whole new side to art

What do you mean, new side?

Side: No
1 point

I'm almost positive it fits at least one or two of the various dictionary definitions for art. That's good enough for me.

Side: Yes
1 point

graffiti is art but not too responsible and appropriate as it is still vandalising , back to the subject, graffiti could produce great things better than those "modern art" we have today, the art today that are famous are simply a few random splats of paint and people call that art, so why doesn't good graffiti art which some people produce be called as art?

Side: Yes
1 point

Depends on what you see as Graffiti.

Some of it is just pure vandalism. Other parts of it, i see as art. At some of that fancy art places i have seen things that i have no idea how it is art.

Side: Yes

It might be horrible vandalism on the other hand but we must define what it vandalizes. If there is graffiti on an ugly-ass 80's concrete box building it isn't vandalizing anything it therefore can only be art. If graffiti is drawn on a beautiful building to mess with it it has nothing to do with art.

If people are going to build the ugliest buildings with no attention to beauty at all they will get graffitied on. The graffiti artist merely finishes the job of vandalism that was initiated by the architect of the building.

Side: Yes

It is urban expression, so, it would be a form of legitimate art.

Side: Yes
2 points

Graffiti may be honest, but the time and effort spent trying to remove it is much longer. Besides, its not worth wasting so much time on vandalism

Side: No
Dremorius(861) Clarified
1 point

The question is whether it is Art or not. Not if it is worthy to be cleaned. In my opinion, some forms of graffiti can be considered as "non-consensual art."

Side: Yes
2 points

If it continues and you are caught, the consequences are much worse. Besides, if you vandalise heritage, it is a criminal offence. You only cause a trace of damage everywhere. Whats the point?

Side: No
Dremorius(861) Clarified
1 point

... again, this debate is about whether it should be classified as Art or not.

We are not questioning whether its safe to do it or not, we are questioning its artistic value.

Side: Yes
2 points

Graffiti is not the most pleasing thing to the eye, you know...

Side: No
Dremorius(861) Disputed
2 points

You were saying?

Side: Yes
2 points

If graffiti was so nice then governments wouldn't ban it, right?

Ok, I mean that most government don't care, but in my country, the Government bans it and it is illegal.

I still remember that year, Michael Fay vandalised a train. He was whipped 14 times (I think), even after desperate pleas by his mother country not to.

Side: No
1 point

Graffiti is vandalism. However I don't consider it worse that modern contemporary art. Which can often be a waste of money.

Side: No

When was graffiti art? It has never been and now the truth has come to light,

graffiti not art

Graffiti = vandalism

Side: No

When you arrest the criminals they'll say, "It's art man!" They have plenty of legal places to do wall art or any form of it, the fact that they choose to do it on our cars, trains, houses, and buildings makes it a crime.

Side: No
0 points

Besides, if you were so artistically talented you should just go and paint on your own wall and then make it a public attraction. Its better that way. You may also increase your reputation

Side: No

AGREED

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Side: No
Jace(5222) Disputed
1 point

Some graffiti artists do make their art on their walls, or they ask permission before using space that they do not own. They are also hired to make their art.

Side: Yes
1 point

Some graffiti artists do make their art on their walls, or they ask permission before using space that they do not own. They are also hired to make their art.

Then they would not be graffiti artists. Architects will be a better name. They don't do graffiti when here is permission.

Side: No