Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Graffiti is art - Tagging is not
After this morning's discussion, I believe that graffiti is art; a nonconvention form of art, but art none-the-less. The writers are looking to shock and sometimes anger the viewers. Most are looking to get their message across and the method of doing that just happens to be painting on a public surface. Yes, it can create controversy and anger many people, but that's the whole point- to create a piece of controversial art, have people see it, and get a reaction to it, regardless if it's positive or negative. The writers in the video blantantly state they are trying to get as many people to see and recognize it as possible, hence trains being a popular medium. Unfortunately, there is also tagging, which I think is complete destruction. Taggers are simply there to destroy something and get attention for it. It is not pretty, it is not thought-provoking, and it is not a piece of art.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would definitely have to agree with Kym. Graffiti is used to get a person's artwork out into the open and cause a reaction to it. However, when people start spray painting their names to simply cover more ground, it takes away from the appreciation of graffiti. Although graffiti has a dictionary definition of "markings, such as initials, slogans, or drawings, written, spray-painted, or sketched on a public property," it is important to recognize the subdivisions within the subculture. Just like punk, there are many different divisions depending on one's interests and objectives. When it comes to graffiti, i feel that there is a major division amongst those who are creating art and those who are simply destroying public property by tagging.
ReplyDeleteIn some of my art classes at the Tyler School of Art, the teachers tell us that anything the creators deeems as art is art, which would definitely put graffiti in that class. I mean, it is termed graffiti art most of the time. However, I do not think this gives anyone the right, nor does it excuse the fact that people deface others property with their art. There is no proper justification I can see in working upon something that is not yours, whatever group accolation is being sought by young graffiti artists.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lindsey's position on private property: doesn't public property belong to everyone?
ReplyDelete