Graffiti vs. Street Art

[wiggums]

This is something that I'm sure most people have experienced first hand at some point in their life. You probably have seen some sort of tag on the walls of your city, or at least in movies. The biggest controversy over this whole matter is it's legality. Sure, graffiti is used to advertise gang activities such as racism, or drug trafficking, but over the years a new type of "Street Artist" has evolved into something possibly different.
The people find joy in sharing their art around the streets of their neighborhood, or even the world. They use the walls to advertise their own creativity, and to promote different thinking processes.

Many "Street Artists" have been able to remain anonymous, and actually enjoy some success off of their work. A great example of this is Banksy. There are many people who collect his work (ever heard of Brad Pitt?) for large sums of money. He lives very well off of this.

http://trippjohnstondesign.com/Blog/files/page4_blog_entry5_1.jpg
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/banksy-graffiti-street-art-soldier-beth.jpg
http://www.blogcadre.com/files/images/graffiti.preview.jpg


The Government normally looks at these as the same thing. Both are illegal, and are in most cases are removed.

So where does graffiti become street art? Where does vandalism become productive? Should this be legal? If so, to what extent?

Where do you draw the line?

[Skittlemeister]

I guess in my opinion graffiti becomes street art when it's a large painting with some entertaining yet deep meaning. Also if it's extremely well-done, that definitely helps, in my book. That third picture of yours would be simply graffiti, because it doesn't give me any sort of, you know, entertainment or anything to think about. But those first two pictures, especially the first one, I would consider street art because the first one is a huge reference and very entertaining to look at, very abstract, while the second one is deep and thoughtful and really gives you something to think about.

What's with your graffiti obsession lately, wiggz?

[wiggums]

I guess in my opinion graffiti becomes street art when it's a large painting with some entertaining yet deep meaning. Also if it's extremely well-done, that definitely helps, in my book. That third picture of yours would be simply graffiti, because it doesn't give me any sort of, you know, entertainment or anything to think about. But those first two pictures, especially the first one, I would consider street art because the first one is a huge reference and very entertaining to look at, very abstract, while the second one is deep and thoughtful and really gives you something to think about.

Yeah, it seems pretty easy to determine what is art and what isn't, but the problem is that both are considered vandalism, and are normally removed. People who do this are sometimes called "Art Terrorists." For some reason, people can't see the difference between obvious criminal activity and just plain creativity in action.


What's with your graffiti obsession lately, wiggz?

Just another way to express myself I suppose. :)

[CostlyAxis]

Well, I draw the line on legality the moment they use a "canvas" they don't own, or do not have the rights/permission to draw on. It's the same as me drawing pictures on the walls in my dorm room. I can call it art to my death (and others may agree), but I never had the right or the permission to draw on those walls. Even if I did pay the fee to be allowed to paint the walls, I have agreed to a select range of solid colors to completely fill the walls.

No matter how talented an artist is, I cannot say I support any that purposely breaks the law(s) to show off their talent. Why is it so difficult for them to simply get a giant sheet of paper and do it on that?

Moving on to your question of vandalism being productive. In my opinion it is never productive if honest, law abiding methods are not used. You're ignorant if you think you can change the look of the streets by breaking the law to do so. You aren't accomplishing anything and setup yourself up for trouble. If you work with the city and gain approval to draw on their walls to add culture, you are actually accomplishing something and setting a good model that things can be changed. Doing so in the shadows leaves only confusion and makes others more offensive to your actions.

Even if by doing so the legal way completely eliminates your chances of creating drawings on the walls to simply repainting them, you should still be accomplishing the same goal. If you only wanted to do so just to have your art up there, buy a large canvas and paint on that instead.

[wiggums]

Well, I draw the line on legality the moment they use a "canvas" they don't own, or do not have the rights/permission to draw on. It's the same as me drawing pictures on the walls in my dorm room. I can call it art to my death (and others may agree), but I never had the right or the permission to draw on those walls. Even if I did pay the fee to be allowed to paint the walls, I have agreed to a select range of solid colors to completely fill the walls.

No matter how talented an artist is, I cannot say I support any that purposely breaks the law(s) to show off their talent. Why is it so difficult for them to simply get a giant sheet of paper and do it on that?

Moving on to your question of vandalism being productive. In my opinion it is never productive if honest, law abiding methods are not used. You're ignorant if you think you can change the look of the streets by breaking the law to do so. You aren't accomplishing anything and setup yourself up for trouble. If you work with the city and gain approval to draw on their walls to add culture, you are actually accomplishing something and setting a good model that things can be changed. Doing so in the shadows leaves only confusion and makes others more offensive to your actions.

Even if by doing so the legal way completely eliminates your chances of creating drawings on the walls to simply repainting them, you should still be accomplishing the same goal. If you only wanted to do so just to have your art up there, buy a large canvas and paint on that instead.

I see where you are coming from, I really do, but one of my main points is that most often this isn't done on private property. These are bridges/buildings that don't have a single owner. I understand this is still vandalism, but I feel something different about it anyway. I believe art is for everyone, and if you want to put it out there for everyone, you should at least try.

Sure, you could paint it on a paid canvas and display it wherever, but I find it much more meaningful when it is a part of the city. Those 2 pictures in the OP in my opinion would lose most of their power if they were on a piece of paper in a museum, instead of outside as a part of the city itself.

Also, a lot of people use this to promote alternate ways of thinking, normally rebellious. Knowing that someone put a message up on a wall for me to see is a pretty powerful thing. It is blunt, and can effectively illustrate a totally new idea in a concise, convincing way. It really shows me that the people in this city think for themselves, and don't let the government define their morals for them. For me it is a way for the body to show its creative side and make the city a more interesting place.

[CostlyAxis]

I see where you are coming from, I really do, but one of my main points is that most often this isn't done on private property. These are bridges/buildings that don't have a single owner. I understand this is still vandalism, but I feel something different about it anyway. I believe art is for everyone, and if you want to put it out there for everyone, you should at least try.
I agree that art should be something everyone should be able to view at their discretion. However, I don't let they make me believe that a person can place their art wherever they feel like. That creates too many loopholes for other things. They should only create their art where they have the rights/permission to do so. That's why I suggested a canvas. There are many pieces of art that have changed history without the need of being painted on a bridge or the side of a train (and those that are on walls and ceilings were commissioned). We even have the internet now where you can easily spread your ideals and art pieces.

Sure, you could paint it on a paid canvas and display it wherever, but I find it much more meaningful when it is a part of the city. Those 2 pictures in the OP in my opinion would lose most of their power if they were on a piece of paper in a museum, instead of outside as a part of the city itself.
The first piece is nothing more than a reference to the Shining. Its effect is the same as say this (http://www.zhippo.com/MikeDevriesTattoosHOSTED/images/gallery/jack.jpg). The only difference is one is on a wall and the other isn't (also one has a paint can). I'm not sure what difference beyond that there is. Most people would probably view the one on the wall as neat, but at the same time wonder what the town they're in is coming to. This is that offensive response I was talking about. When a person views a bridge, they want to see it clean of images as a way of knowing the bridge is maintained. The same with buildings or other public locations.

Also, a lot of people use this to promote alternate ways of thinking, normally rebellious. Knowing that someone put a message up on a wall for me to see is a pretty powerful thing. It is blunt, and can effectively illustrate a totally new idea in a concise, convincing way. It really shows me that the people in this city think for themselves, and don't let the government define their morals for them. For me it is a way for the body to show its creative side and make the city a more interesting place.
Art on a regular canvas is just as powerful, if not more powerful. A proper canvas can last for centuries and leave the viewers mesmerized for generations (like the Mona Lisa). Art on a wall is subject to simply collapse to make way for a new building. If anything, graffiti art represents something temporary that easily changes with the times. It cannot present an everlasting image needed to provoke a new wave of thought. However, it can certainly instill fear and hatred quite easily which hurts its merit, even in good intentions.

[Zackj191]

I feel as though graffiti is an art. The people who don't like it and think it's bad and terrible don't realize how difficult it really is to make a good tag. The amount of work that goes into creative a good tag and making it look nice is a very long process. By the way, using stencils is looked down upon by the graffiti artists as being a loser or an unskilled artist. It's like someone who thinks they are smart but really don't have a clue.

@Costly: If you looked at it as a form of art and not as a form of graffiti then your opinion would change. It seems almost as if you are coming at this with an already biased approach which could be the reason you have such a harsh stance on it. I feel as though gang tags, such as Nortes or Scraps where they just write "13" or "XIII" on a wall gives a bad name to all graffiti artists who actually take time and skill to make their art. The only difference between a conventional artist and a graffiti artist is that the conventional artist does it, usually, for the fame or money while a graffiti artist does it for his love of the work. How could you go around and tag wall with an anonymous face and no recognition and claim to do it for money and fame. However, when you have a skill and use it for just money you lose the ability to create truly beautiful works or art.

[Joe is Outside]

Watch "Banksy's Exit Throught The Gift Shop" you'll get a really good idea of what is street art, why they do that and how it is fucking awesome.

Btw, the tird picture you show is a tag, not a graffiti

Street art is not only paint stickers and stencils, it can also be 3D
http://www.whokilledbambi.co.uk/public/2007/08/banksy-telephone-booth.jpg
this is Banksy’s Guantanamo Disney Land Prisoner
http://cdn.newsone.com/files/2008/11/guantanemo_crop.jpg

Removed - .Timothy

and this is my favorite one by banksy
http://blogs.uit.tufts.edu/elcinmaraslisblog/banksy.jpg

Whether or not it is art is in the eye of the beholder

[Ribbo MKII]

What others think of his artwork:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYsr-O6fp-w&playnext=1&list=PLDB3474F3BD76C4DF&index=48

Banksy was also invited to Buckingham palace for dinner last year. It was filmed on BBC News, but His face was pixellated and his voice was Distorted.

[Zackj191]

Btw, the tird picture you show is a tag, not a graffiti



Graffiti is just writing on walls you don't own.. Those are tags, you're right. But there are differences between those and things like this:
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jT0z81uMq3E/0.jpg


That, is a "piece"

If it was a short hand version, for instance if his word was "Doug" his short version could be "Dg" and they that would change it to a "Throwup" something you can do quick.

A Tag < Throwup < Piece < Bomb < Mural

Tag= The third picture wiggums had, just the letters, no blocky or width really to it.

Throup= Short version of a piece, but still larger than a tag

Piece= Most common thing people think of. The words with blockly lettering or bubbly style letters

Bomb= A HUGE piece. The only difference is the size for a Piece and a Bomb. (Like Saber's [man in LA who tags the word "Saber"] giant 130 foot Bomb he made with paint on the inside of the LA Aqueduct)

Mural= A painting, or portrait. Usually not just the words but more like an image with a signature at the bottom, usually in the form of a tag

[Zackj191]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_graffiti_artists


Read that page. If you go down and see "Cope2" and think you may have seen his tags somewhere, you have probably played GTA IV. Cope was one of the largest graffiti artist to live in Modern History. He is literally so big that his pieces did end up on the walls of the game GTA IV. You can find them in various parts of the game, like in the abandoned hospital you have to go to for a mission.


Here is one of my favorites "Doug"

YouTube - GRAFFITI - DOUG DREALER IS BACK!!! DIE SLOW VOLUME 2 COMING SOON!!!

I think he has a very clean looking piece.

Here's another video

YouTube - the best doug video EVER!!!

[TheClubhouse]

Grafitti is not art. Far from it. I know a guy that was an AVID grafitti "artist". He would go out and tag crap every-day. Somebody else has to clean up their crap, often either by painting over or using harsh chem to remove the tags. IF, someone pays you OR gives you permission to draw/paint on THEIR property...... Then it's art. Otherwise, its vandalism. And when they caught my buddy (tagging inside a transit train-station), they went on to mention that he has thousands of documented tags, and they're going to punish him to the full extent of the law. His punishment, was to paint a picture of what he's going to be doing in 5 years from now. I'm not kidding. Thousands of dollars in public/private damage, and that's what his punishment was. And I saw the painting....... he painted a pic of him & his crew, tagging the police HQ across the street from City Hall. WTF! Because he painted the pic, he now has NO criminal record. The second time they caught him, they dropped the charges a year later. Oh, he was 19 the first time they busted him. Not a child offender.

[Docter Weegee]

Taging is not art.

I do some art, I will prepare a picture when I get back to my home.

[Docter Weegee]

Grafitti is not art. Far from it. I know a guy that was an AVID grafitti "artist". He would go out and tag crap every-day. Somebody else has to clean up their crap, often either by painting over or using harsh chem to remove the tags. IF, someone pays you OR gives you permission to draw/paint on THEIR property...... Then it's art. Otherwise, its vandalism. And when they caught my buddy (tagging inside a transit train-station), they went on to mention that he has thousands of documented tags, and they're going to punish him to the full extent of the law. His punishment, was to paint a picture of what he's going to be doing in 5 years from now. I'm not kidding. Thousands of dollars in public/private damage, and that's what his punishment was. And I saw the painting....... he painted a pic of him & his crew, tagging the police HQ across the street from City Hall. WTF! Because he painted the pic, he now has NO criminal record. The second time they caught him, they dropped the charges a year later. Oh, he was 19 the first time they busted him. Not a child offender.

That is tagging. Tagging is for sucks.

Real grafitti is art.