Graffiti: Art or Vandalism?

[Requin]

I thought it would be good to have a non religous debate in here. And I was interested in what people thought about this.

As most (I hope) are aware, the famous guerrila artist Banksy is from Bristol (where I'm from, woot!) and he has gone all around the globe creating clever and funny graffiti on walls etc and has sold many of his works to famous people for vast amounts of money. But is it art or vandalism?

I love bansky's stuff, and of course, part of the whole appeal of Banksy is that no one knows who he is. You may have spotted some of his stuff in your city, he's been to NY recently and done some I think. Check out his stuff first before you post, then you can get an idea on what its like.

Personally I think that what he and other do is art, the creative thinking and stuf, but the normal 'tags' of scribbled spray can writing like 'Tom waz ere' and 'Laur suks nob!', is vandalism.
At least his stuff is good to look at.

Here's his website with his stuff, its worth a look www.banksy.co.uk (http://www.banksy.co.uk)
Here's one of his first he did in Bristol and I see it pretty much every time I go into town:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/content/images/2007/05/18/banksy1_470x300.jpg
And another which was recently washed away by the council in London:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_03/NewBanksyES_468x643.jpg

And to show what I mean by the normal 'tag' stuff which IS vandalism in my view:
http://www.tandridge.gov.uk/images/tandridgedistrictcouncil/recycling/GraffitiMintWalk2.jpg
What do you think then guys?

[Triceratops]

I love Banksy too, I think his art is remarkable.

I agree with what you're saying. When a chav graffiti's something retarded such as "i r dik'ed" or "wag1 2 da niggaz 2k9" then I would definitely consider that as vandalism as it wasn't supposed to be art in the first place and it's just trash on a wall.

I personally think artwork like Banksy's isn't exactly vandalism. He's talented and the graffiti created by people like him just brightens up a dull town, is very interesting to look at and is pleasing to the eye.

[Sage]

I'll have to agree. Anything in good in good taste shouldn't qualify as vandalism, although I can understand how some people may want to leave their walls undecorated.

[theOperaGhost]

I consider it vandalism....which is what it is under law.

[INFERNO]

Anything in good in good taste shouldn't qualify as vandalism

Interesting, why this view?

I believe it's vandalism no matter how good it is. That being said, the vandalism can sometimes, although most of what I've seen is like the last picture with the "tag" stuff, be art. But both the tag stuff and the fancy Banksy stuff is vandalism, although the Banksy stuff is more artistic.

[Skeln]

Yeah, they're both vandalism. The only difference is that one is fancy, someone put alot of time and work into it, and it's enjoyable to look at while the other looks like crap. Now, if he were to actually get permission then I don't think it would be vandalism. Banksy's drawings are artistic, but I wouldn' just leble them "art" without lableing them "vandalism" as well. "Artistic vandalism" now, that's the name for it.

[Reality]

This is quite an interesting topic, actually. But yeah, I agree it really depends on the situation, why, where and who's doing it. Some graffiti looks like shit on random walls, whilst others can be quite artistic and have a good point.

When graffiti is "vandalism" in my opinion, it is when random people like chavs or gangster-wannabes scribble on bathroom walls, at train-stations and in school and write absolute meaningless trash on the walls like "jack iz gay", "tasha woz ere" or "katey iz a slag", which is really anti-social and pointless. It can actually be so stupid it's entertaining, sometimes, but really it's just plain vandalism.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3021/2393302706_80dfe68c49.jpg?v=0
^ That is an example of meaningless graffiti, which I consider vandalism.

But on the other hand, although it's vandalism, small graffiti on random walls such as "jack + jessy + kevin '04" can be kind of a way to leave your mark.. and it can be nostalgic, or something. I actually kind of find old graffiti interesting to read, even if it's pure trash.

And of course then you got political graffiti, which is actually very artistic and is a great way of expressing your opinions. Especially that "One Nation Under CCTV" one. It's very powerful.

Here's a few examples:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1015/549261907_2edb933631.jpg?v=0

http://www.frankjump.com/blog/greenpoint_conservative_men.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_hqXELvCTjoc/R1mMjnVDfiI/AAAAAAAACeg/0xdnRHAKyb8/s400/Berlin%2BWall.jpg

[Sage]

Interesting, why this view?

Well, perhaps I should rephrase- 'Anything' could be misleading on my part. Poor choice of words. I'll elaborate.

I've always held the view that something that does not hurt anyone should not necessarily be against the law. When it comes to 'tag grafitti', it is inherantly hurtful. They're generally obscene, petty messages that glorify the terrible gang culture that's sweeping so many countries' youth today. They symbolise nothing but the downward spiral society is taking- And not in a good light.

When it comes to real talent such as Banksy and others though, I don't think it should always be illegal. Some of the images are truly inspiring and show a great deal of worksmanship. Yes, I understand that many people may not like to have their building walls decorated- That's completely fair. Sometimes the image depicted might conflict with the landowner's viewpoints. It is their property. But if these things were regulated, and building owners didn't mind large murals displayed on their buildings- What's the harm?

[INFERNO]

Well, perhaps I should rephrase- 'Anything' could be misleading on my part. Poor choice of words. I'll elaborate.

I've always held the view that something that does not hurt anyone should not necessarily be against the law. When it comes to 'tag grafitti', it is inherantly hurtful. They're generally obscene, petty messages that glorify the terrible gang culture that's sweeping so many countries' youth today. They symbolise nothing but the downward spiral society is taking- And not in a good light.

When it comes to real talent such as Banksy and others though, I don't think it should always be illegal. Some of the images are truly inspiring and show a great deal of worksmanship. Yes, I understand that many people may not like to have their building walls decorated- That's completely fair. Sometimes the image depicted might conflict with the landowner's viewpoints. It is their property. But if these things were regulated, and building owners didn't mind large murals displayed on their buildings- What's the harm?

True, if building owners didn't mind, then it's legally acceptable. However, what if it is a public area, such as a bridge or at a park? It seems rather silly for the mayor or governor or whoever to say "you can only write stuff if it looks " pretty " ". This begs the question, what is acceptable? Perhaps the law-makers may find something acceptable but the public doesn't, then what? What if someone new steps in and they change the law?

If the person asks the land owner(s), gets it in writing (in case there are legal issues), then they can go ahead, that's fine. But, if they don't get permission, regardless of how much skill is shown in it, it's vandalism.

To me it seems silly that if something is to be considered vandalism, you first have to judge how nice it looks. I'd much rather have it as either it's all considered vandalism or it all isn't, with exceptions if permission was received beforehand.

[Oblivion]

I think it's vandalism. It's not with permission, so it can be bad, no matter how good the art is.

[Death]

Want my opinion? Vandalism is vandalism. So, maybe one looks good while the other looks like crap? It is merely cosmetic. No matter how it looks, graffeti is vandalism.