CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Rko498

Reward Points:0
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
100%
Arguments:10
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

1 point

The state’s astounding variety of biotic communities with their diverse collections

of plants and animals is examined in this chapter. The living laboratory we

call California is so enormous and biologically diverse that the study of it poses

some problems: Where do we start? How do we organize our study? How do we classify

the various living environments? Of course, these same problems confront

botanists, zoologists, and biogeographers around the world. However, scientists

studying California’s plants and animals have

engaged in exceptionally fascinating and controversial

debates involving these problems

and other related issues. Their debates often

revolve around the diversity, connections, and

change that are major themes throughout this

book.

The diversity of California’s plants and animals

is in large part a result of the state’s wide

range of latitude and elevation and its position

on North America’s subtropical and mid-latitude

west coast

1 point

The people who are watching olypics enjoy supporting their team

Rko498 has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here