What is your opinion on this aspect of urban life? Should these drawings be whitewashed by city workers? Should they be allowed on public property? What should be the policy for private property? What about abandoned areas? What does it mean when an area is covered with street art or graffiti?
47 thoughts on “Graffiti: Art or Vandalism”
Street art is and has always been an important part of urban culture. It is a great way for artists to anonymously express themselves to a wide array of different people. I have always enjoyed looking at graffiti art in urban places and do not think that the work of these talented artists should be whitewashed away like it frequently is. Of course there is always the case that a large amount of the art in urban areas is considered vandalism because it is spray painted on to public buildings or government property, but destroying art that arguably does more good than harm is not always the right way to deal with the issue. The problem with whitewashing street art is that it not only gives someone the opportunity to just graffiti over it again but it obligates them to continue to vandalize; causing whitewashing to be a complete waste of time and money for the government. So, in my opinion, creating more policies and laws against street art will only make the problem worse, because most graffiti artists don’t care if what they’re doing is illegal or not and will continue even if someone will try to stop them.
I believe that graffiti is a huge part of urban life. Graffiti is an interesting form of art that can be viewed by the public on an everyday basis. I do not believe graffiti should be whitewashed by city workers because it can be visually appealing to the human eye and bring joy to the viewer. On the other hand, I do not think that graffiti should be allowed on public property. Private properties should stay private. I think that there should be places around cities specifically for graffiti. Old abandoned areas are perfect for graffiti because it will bring more life to it. Graffiti is an amazing way to allow an artist to express themselves for the world to see. I believe that graffiti should be promoted to certain extent that the artist is not breaking the law.
why doesn’t it consider vandalism?
I think that graffiti is art. But only to a certain extent as there comes a point where it can become disrespectful. When it comes to private property, I think it should be illegal, but on public property, just so long as there isn’t any overly inappropriate images or language. But this would raise another problem as everyone’s view of inappropriate varies. I think that as long as people keep the respect of other people in mind, it is really just art. This is a very touchy topic as the boundaries for this could vary so much. But as a general outlook, I think that graffiti is art. And from my standing there isn’t much that would bother me in this area of boundaries, but I also realize that not everyone is as relaxed about a topic like this. But most definitely in my opinion, graffiti is art.
Graffiti is an artistic way to express thoughts, feelings, and even the emotions of certain groups or people. This form of art should be allowed to a certain extent. For instance, graffiti is prohibited in multiple areas across cities, yet people still pursue to make this artwork. To make this legal and permissible in cities, there should be designated areas to which artists can create artwork and make their names known.Moreover, graffiti has been established with gang symbols and signs in the past; However, this form of art has modernized into something more than the past. In many ways, graffiti has evolved so much, that it should be promoted around the world (in places that are not illegal). The use of bright colours and intricate patterns make it aesthetically appealing to look at, and it could certainly brighten up a city. Profanity in graffiti has certainly faded away, and has transformed from something from bad influences, to something that can be inspirational. In some cities that are older and abandoned, graffiti is seen more in those areas. It really does liven up areas, and establishes some fascinating locations. To close, graffiti should certainly be promoted in cities, by designating areas for this to be showcased, and for artists to express themselves on a large scale.
Daniel you misunderstand the history of graffiti art. People have been painting on walls since the beginning of time and we have plenty of evidence found on the walls inside caves that are thousands of years old. “They” don’t want us painting on walls cuz art imitates life and it would inspire the masses to become wise and seek the truth which would only quicken the destruction of the modern world system and forever end imperialism.
Graffiti is no more than an insight to the world of people’s minds. It is a way to share a unique art style without any cost or long line up to view. Much like music today on YouTube, graffiti is there for everyone to view and enjoy and use one’s own imagination and mind to interpret the unique drawings and designs. It can be argued that graffiti has a negative effect on today’s society or the upcoming youth as it can often portray gruesome images, negative opinions or involve sexual content. However, graffiti is not only the horrid factors which many believe it to be. Graffiti is a very reliable source of art and regardless of what city or small town it will still be there. Graffiti can be seen as a high for the individuals who take the time to create the art. The illegal drawings and acts are a way for the individuals participating to feel something as they are going against the rules and laws to share their art work. Overall there is no way that graffiti will be abolished because there will always be people looking to go out and cause some mischief. Although, as long as the street art stays relatively neutral for all eyes to view then there is no reason for the meticulous art to be erased.
I think graffiti is both art and vandalism. These people have honed their skills for many years and are expressing themselves. They put a lot of time and effort into these pieces and some of them really are incredible to look at. I certainly enjoy many of them. The problem however is that some of these places are privately owned property. And regardless of how onlookers or the artists may feel about it, whether street art should be allowed on a building is solely up to the owner of that building. And they could have any number of reasons for not wanting their buildings decorated with graffiti. They might not personally like the look of it, think it clashes with the aesthetic they are aiming for, or think that it looks unprofessional. Because of that, I don’t think people should allowed to put it just anywhere, and whitewashing should certainly be allowed. However, I think it would be a good idea to set up areas on public property specifically for artists, and/or to legally allow them to put graffiti on abandoned buildings, since no one is using them. Also, specific building owners, if they don’t mind graffiti, could potentially set up signs to indicate that.
Graffiti can be vandalism and street art; it all depends on where it is placed and the content of it. There is some street art that is inappropriate and there is some that is beautiful and nice to look at. I believe that the content of the graffiti should be the judge of whether or not it is removed. If it is offensive then it should be white-washed, but if it is nice and cute, then it should be allowed to stay. I think it is also important where the graffiti is placed. If the property is deserted, then I do not think that having the graffiti there is a bad thing unless there is a sign stating that it is not allowed. If it is a public building or private property then it would not be allowed to remain there. To conclude, graffiti can be positive in a way to express oneself as street art but it can also send a bad message and be vandalism.
I believe the graffiti can be both vandalism and public art. it can be art work because of the work that some of these artists put in there pieces. they make urban areas become lively and action filled liek how they were meant to be. that being said there should be some areas were graffiti can be considered vandalism, such as private property. areas such as under bridges, alley sides and similar areas should be utilized. these areas can be filled with wonderful graffiti artwork without harming anyone. in fact they are using space that would otherwise never be used. when doing graffiti there can be some areas that do not matter if u graffiti. these include abandoned houses and buildings. areas set to demolished, etc. That being said graffiti in some forms can be offensive, like gangs signs or profanity. that should not be permitted to do; if it is done it should be white washed OR covered with some artwork from artists who take enjoyment in there street art. So it can be vandalism if it is offensive/destructive nature. Or it can be taken as artwork that helps promote the urban culture and its lifestyle. For me graffiti is usually artwork that goes unappreciated because of the lack of professionalism involved.
I myself thoroughly enjoy seeing graffiti around urban areas, it gives life and uniqueness to the places it is around. I think some individuals are incredibly talented with what they do with spray paint. With that being said I do not always approve of where these individuals place their artwork. If there were designated areas where graffiti was allowed then it would be a lot more appropriate. Some of these artists work very hard on these pieces so when I can see that they have worked hard I rarely support them painting over it. However if there is immature and offensive graffiti it is of course very necessary to have the spray paint removed. It is understandable for private property owners to be against having their buildings and such vandalized which goes with what I said before with the designated areas, buildings etc. being a phenomenal idea. Abandoned building’s that have graffiti on them are fine in my opinion seeing as that is the perfect place to perform street art. The buildings will most likely be torn down eventually anyway so there is not much hurt in the graffiti on the abandoned buildings other than the possibility of an eye-soar.
In my opinion, Graffiti is an art form that must be used in the proper place/time to be considered art and not vandalism of property. It is to my belief that all cities should designate walls/areas within the area of public suburbia that are strictly for the purpose of graffiti artists’ works to be displayed. These drawings should not be whitewashed by city workers if they are only expressing a visual aspect of culture, in areas that are allowing the flow of the arm form. However, if the art is graphic or offensive then those are terms seen fit where whitewashing of the graffiti is acceptable. Private property should always be labelled and clearly stated as such, otherwise let the street artists have their way with freedom of expression. Abandoned areas should be legally designated to the artistic design of whoever it sees fit. If a street is covered with graffiti it should not scare people away, it should not associate with gangs and ghettos; rather it should associate with open minded culture and activism within a community that stands for freedom of expression for all. Graffiti is a form of expression that should not be silenced just because it is associated with gang activity. Graffiti is a talent, an art form, and should be viewed as such when used and expressed correctly.
I believe there are different types of graffiti. There is vandalism graffiti and there is artistic graffiti. Vandalism graffiti is when someone does graffiti on a building without permission. This could be just them writing something or they could be creating beautiful pieces of art. However, if they do not have permission to do this graffiti then it is vandalism. It may be beautiful or have a deeper message but it’s still illegal. There’s another type of graffiti which I call artistic graffiti. This is where someone has permission to graffiti a building or other structure. They could have been hired or just given permission. Some companies will hire artists to graffiti on their buildings and create beautiful works of art. So, in my opinion, vandalism graffiti is illegal and should be dealt with as so. There are so many other ways of doing graffiti art that is legal like using a giant canvas or other materials that could be found or bought. Artistic graffiti is okay because there is given permission to be able to graffiti a place so it is not vandalism. Both of these are art forms and art is a form of expression. While one should be allowed to express themselves however they want, doing it in an illegal way is not right.
I believe that street art should be allowed because it is a way by which people express themselves. Obviously there would have to be some type of limitation like certain areas that are open for graffiti, while others are off limits.
In my opinion graffiti is an art. It take’s skill and an eye to be able to create such beauty. The problem isn’t the graffiti, it’s where the artist displays their work. Government/city buildings, private property, housing and parks might be dull and unappealing with out some paint added but without permission from the city or owners, there space and walls become ‘off limits.’ Once the artist sprays their store or bench, it becomes vandalism and you can be charged. People are left with such talent and no where to express what they think and how they see the world through their art because of where they decide to do it. I believe there should be a place where they can do there work without having to run from the cops or it being removed. A place where beauty, talent and self expression can be shown for the whole town. The art of graffiti becomes lost when people write it off so quickly as vandalism. Stop and look at the picture, colours, and the wide variety of talent our society has.
I believe that graffiti is art but sometime it can also be vandalism. Some graffiti is beautiful and should not be washed away, on the other hand, some graffiti is offensive and should be washed away. Private property should not be aloud to have graffiti on it unless the owner tell you that you are aloud but on public property and abandoned buildings it should be aloud unless it is offensive. Graffiti is an art form and it should be treated as one.
In regards to graffiti being classified as either art or vandalism, I do believe that graffiti falls under both categories. I believe that graffiti can only be classified as art when it is done on public property and it is something non-offensive, often I come across appealing, and sometimes motivating graffiti that is done beautiful on an abandoned building or private property, and in some cases it even livens up the surrounding area or makes it more appealing, this type of graffiti should definitely be allowed to stay up since it is offending no one and is not causing any trouble. On the other hand, the graffiti I believe should not be allowed is the offensive type. Also, graffiti done on private property and/or on important buildings/structures should be banned and immediately gotten rid of.
I believe there are two very different types of “graffiti”; there is the beautiful, meaningful and society challenging aspect of certain graffiti, but there is also tagging which is messy, vandalism with no further purpose than putting your mark on a building. For the artists who make a beautiful piece of artwork on the side of the building, some should be found and hired to give dark, depressing, abandoned buildings a new light and to make them new and beautiful again. Graffiti should be used to re-purpose and revitalize but not to vandalize. Those who use it to rebel by tagging buildings with hideous markings or profanities, their art should be white washed. I believe on public or private property the owner/government should be able to allow or deny access to the property to graffiti artists. I know in some cities property owners hire graffiti artist to decorate buildings. There are large murals in Toronto which were made by artists legally. The stigma that is attached to graffiti is negative and rightfully so for some tagging; when a street is covered in messy and meaningless art it makes the street look cheap and gloomy. Overall graffiti is about free expression but a property owner should have the right to choose if they want there buildings covered in graffiti.
In terms of graffiti, there is a fine line between the graffiti being art or being disrespectful vandalism. Seeing beautiful pieces of graffiti being whitewashed by city workers can be disheartening. At the same time, some graffiti must be dealt with. There is a difference between a Bansky piece that has been carefully thought out, and a broken hearted 17 year old scrawling “f*** Haley” on the side on a Tim Hortons. There are cases in which graffiti can be considered art and cases where it is down right disrespectful. Many street artists who want to put their work on display have faced fights with city workers who white-wash their work away within days of it being completed. It is not about public or private property, nor does it matter if the graffiti is on the side of a abandon building. If it is tasteless trash, it deserves to be white-washed, if not, why not leave it to be admired?
In regards to graffiti being branded as an act of vandalism or art, I believe that there is a mark of talent within graffiti which is often covered by vandalism. Although there are many astonishing works of graffiti throughout cities, such as image of the girl swinging above, they are often displayed at locations hidden from the public’s view. However, the graffiti that is often seen by the public is nothing more than pure vandalism, leading to hatred of the art. Basically, there is a time and place for everything. If the graffiti is being illustrated by professionals on public property with permission and the intention to draw or write something that the majority of the public will enjoy, then the graffiti is art. But if it is carried out on private property without permission and resembles a message or image that does not intend on the overall good for the general public or property owner, then the act should be prohibited. In terms of the above graffiti, I believe that although the image of the girl swinging itself is appealing to the eye, the manipulation of the word “PARKING” into “PARK” is damaging to not only the public but the owner of the lot as well. Nonetheless, in order to accommodate for young artists, they should be allowed to graffiti in abandoned areas as long as they vow to increase the visual appeal of the area in a non offensive manor. In addition, talented Picasso’s can be drawn in by marketing companies to design logos or images for other businesses, which benefits both the artist, whom will receive pay for doing what they love, and the business owner whom will receive a visually stunning display.
Personally, I do not mind graffiti that much. Some people make really interesting pictures, and are very talented. I don’t think it is necessarily right to graffiti on public/private buildings for someone pays money for that and they may not want graffiti on it. Abandon areas or other places such as bridge structures I do not see the problem with it. People do it to express themselves and as long as it is not hurting anyone I think they should be allowed to do it. Having designated graffiti areas would be a good idea, for some people just need a place to put their art. Some people feel graffiti makes a place look worse but other times they are works of art and gives the building more character.
This aspect of urban life is somewhat unique. The time and effort put into making these drawings are unimaginable, whether they do it sneaking up at night time or with caution during day time. They always have to put that extra effort to put these drawings in place. Even though the drawings are nice and have been made with lots of effort, it is not right to put it in someone else’s property. It doesn’t make sense to why someone would put such talents to waste by doing it in someone else’s property, gaining no profit nor fame. I believe that these drawings should be whitewashed because it is just a waste of extra paint sitting on a clean wall. They should not allow such drawing to be drawn on the street walls unless if they get the permission from the government or the property owner because some people work really hard to earn that money for repairs and even the government doesn’t want to waste that extra little money just to clean up the city. Private properties should be respected and should not be contaminated by these art works unless preferred by the property owner. Although I believe it’s somewhat alright to draw in abandoned areas since no one is ever there. But once again, I don’t see the point in doing that. I don’t get what pleasure they get from drawing in an empty ally where no one ever passes by nor sees the drawings. When an area is covered with graffiti and street art, some people feel endangered. They fear that there may be some bad people living in these areas and that perhaps it’s not the best place to live in. It causes most people to switch areas in order to feel safe. If these did not exist in private properties, it would attract lot more people and make them feel safer to inhabit he place. Graffiti should be completely removed from private properties but should have some purpose in an art competition and so on in order to make it look more attractive.
In my opinion, there are people who hear the word graffiti and automatically think of vandalizing and there are also others who truly admire this artwork. I view graffiti and street art as being extraordinary and beautiful. It is very a unique way of art. It can express feelings, ideas, political views, or even a way of telling a story. Quick tags such as names, quick drawings and disrespectful graffiti should be whitewashed by city workers. I believe that it should be allowed on public property if it is a meaningful piece of art. Unless with permission, graffiti and street art should not be allowed to be spray painted on private property’s.
Personally I feel that graffiti is a way for people to express themselves through public art. Some people choose to hang their art on a wall in their home and others choose to paint it on the side of a building for everyone to see. As long as the graffiti is not on someone’s private property, like a fence or the side of a house, and the graffiti isn’t racist, sexist or cuss words; than it’s perfectly fine. Most graffiti is a genius work of art that in my opinion has the right to be displayed. Graffiti is a way to express one’s self and let out built in emotions. I think as long as the graffiti isn’t disturbing anyone, then city workers should leave it alone.
I personally feel that graffiti is a beautiful way to express ones feelings. Not only does it show the city’s true artists but it also makes the city itself more vibrant and colourful. Cities are always under construction, funny enough Hamilton is in a very large construction phase of it’s own. New condos, new roads, so much is happening in Hamilton right now and it looks plain ugly. There is dust everywhere, orange signs and pylons. Nobody wants to see that. So I believe that we should fall upon the wonderful “graffiti” to make our city come back to life. Now I understand there is much controversy about who, where, and when. We can’t just let people out of no where paint a mural on the side of a building in the middle of the night. There should be a way to confront the city and put forward an idea of a new art project. The person can tell them, what they want to paint and where. Then the city will decide if this is right for that area or if the painting is appropriate. That way we the city won’t have to deal with covering up graffiti because they were the ones that allowed it.
All in all, I truly believe that graffiti is art, and art should be shown.
Graffiti is art. It is inspiration and creativity using letters and pictures in various way. Take a look at four points park in New York, a brilliant and ever changing collaboration of graffiti artists who spends hours and days working on a piece just like painters, until it is done. Some it is a creative outlet for overwhelming emotions
However that does not mean it is allowed to be painted anywhere and with vulgar words to the public. Also place a name or “tag” just anywhere is not acceptable either.That is immature and rude to the people who share the public space.
I agree with several comments that were made on this topic by my fellow classmates. I believe that graffiti at times can be an art, but at the same time if it was not granted permission to be made than it is vandalism. Graffiti can be both art and vandalism at the same time. I believe that there is a time and place for everything and that graffiti is no different. If an owner of a building wants to make his building more interesting or appealing and they personally go out and find a graffiti artist to do a “piece” on their building than this is a different story. The graffiti that is gang related and has negative messages and is in places where the owner of the property does not wish them to be, to me is graffiti. This is just another problem for the owner of that property, because they will have to pay for it to be removed, and while it is there this graffiti will just have a negative impact on the property and sometimes on those who see it as well.
In my opinion I agree that graffiti should be illegal. Although it is a form of art and a way of expressing yourself and your creativity, some people ruin it by vandalizing private property and buildings. When graffiti is all over the city covering buildings it not only portrays a negative image for the city such as slums, ghettos, or alleyways but it is disrespectful and causes extra work for the city workers having to clean it off buildings and private property. When I was visiting Winnipeg Manitoba they made huge murals all over the town buildings witch was really cool and expressive showing the creativity. This made the town (St Paul) very unique to visit. These art pieces were done professionally by graffiti artists. I think if a town wants to eliminate the graffiti in the city they should have designated areas in the city or parks instead of vandalizing the city buildings that will get removed anyway.
Again I believe that graffiti is a way to express yourself and how some graffiti experts can create masterful pieces that cannot be duplicated but then on the other side, when gang members use graffiti to mark certain neighbourhoods as there territory is something that should not be tolerated.
In my opinion graffiti is a form of art and although it is creative and expresses the artist’s thoughts, I agree with it being illegal. Graffiti changes the look of a building or area, mostly negatively, and city workers whitewash it quickly to avoid a bad reputation for the city. This costs the government and taxpayers a large sum of money yearly to remove the graffiti from cleaner areas. It shouldn’t be allowed on either public or private properties. In the public graffiti can have a negative effect on tourism since an area with a lot of graffiti is considered “lawless” because the city doesn’t care for this crime, and doesn’t bother cleaning it. As for private property, if it is your property you can go ahead and graffiti every last inch of it. But the crime should be severe if someone vandalised a private property with graffiti. In most cases you will find abandoned areas already full of graffiti, so although it would be looked down upon, I don’t think it should be illegal to graffiti in abandoned areas. In conclusion, graffiti is vandalism and if an artist wants to “express their thoughts” they are welcome to graffiti on paper or a surface in a private place.
Graffiti is art yes and is allowed on some walls in some places, but it being illegal is the driving force behind it. I feel that it being a criminal act is what appeals kids to become graffiti artists, whether they want to make a statement, send a message, or just plain old break the rules.
After reading the above responses I would personally like to give my own opinion. Graffiti to me is a form of art but can only go so far. There is a time and place for graffiti. Being able to draw and creatively create different stories with the use of spray paint is a talent that should not be penalized. But on the other hand, these artists should NOT being doing their art work on public walls or areas because it is considered vandalizing public property.There are areas in the city that are for graffiti purposes and allow artists to create designs freely that ultimately give our city meaning and personality. What I do not agree with is the artists who stroll the city and spray their initials on public brick walls because it is simply not art to me. Altogether, there should be rules and regulations based on graffiti based on what is acceptable and what is not.
I agree with Eryn here as she has stated thoughts similar to that of my own, as I myself feel that graffiti is an art form and it takes great skills as we have seen throughout years of how famous graffiti artist such as the England baed graffiti artist by the name of Banksy who has such images as an angel and Charles Manson to name a few. There is a time and place for these artists to show off their skills, but for those who just go around spray painting gang signs and provocative images needs to stop.
I believe graffiti brings out creativity in people and places. A great example would be the Banksy street art picture, which would be a boring and plain sight if someone had not “graphitised” a girl on a swing. Just that little addition to the wall makes me want to take a second look at the picture and consider how far an illustration can go. Although it is a creative way for one to express themselves, it should have its limitations. The biggest issue being private properties. You would not break someone’s car, so don’t ruin it with a new paint job. Graffiti is a way for one to express their inner imagination, as long as they’re not offending others (e.g. discrimination) with their illustrations. Personally, I see them as drawings that grownups do. In public areas though, I think there should be a specific symbol or some sort to address the public that graffiti is permitted here as long as it is not offensive and another symbol to indicate that graphitising on a specific wall is illegal and will be removed immediately. Also, there could be promotions by people or businesses who are looking for people to create specific illustrations on their property or even have areas where people may legally display their graffiti talent. The point is we won’t know until we try new solutions, instead of just punishing these individuals.
I could see how many people see graffiti as a crime. There are some types of graffiti out there that are really offensive. But I think that graffiti is just a way of expressing yourself. Most of the graffiti I’ve seen I would say it’s creative. This is a way for these kids to let out how they feel and express themselves. Also I think that people do graffiti because it’s a crime. Graffiti is another way for kids to rebel. If you give the kids an area where graffiti is legal, I don’t think many kids will be willing to do their graffiti there. But this is just my opinion, maybe I’m wrong and this area might just be filled with graffiti.
I believe there is a particular place and designation for street/graffiti art and it isn’t wherever the artist wants it to be. Toronto and other large cities are creating walls and other large surfaces for artists to use as a platform for their work, but I think there should be harsh penalties for drawing on surfaces in the public eye as gangs can use these areas to “make their mark” and intimidate the public.
I believe that street art is good and some of it looks really cool and I think that it takes an artist to make a good picture, but graffiti is just a bunch of messy words representing gangs and other unimportant things which just looks bad and dirty. When people see street art you almost always tell someone about it and you want you remember the spot you saw it and you try and bring your friends back to show them but when you see graffiti no one gets excited about and its never talked about. Graffiti should be whitewashed out but Street art, if its good enough should be applauded. If tourist come to Hamilton we dont want people to think that we live in a trashy area and graffiti can bring a bad look on the city.
If you take a stroll in down town areas you are more than likely to see different types of graffiti and street art. Most of which are vulgar and rude, but there are many that are highly interesting and inspirational. Yes street art and graffiti are different in ways such that street art is usually on private properties and it’s a portrait of an actual picture or scenery for example, and graffiti is usually more cartoon-shaped letters and pictures. I do prefer graffiti though. When people think of graffiti, they immediately think of tagging, which is not to be confused, tagging is when someone goes around writing their name, or their group name on signs and buildings, no art what-so-ever is involve in tagging. I think tagging should be whitewashed and should not be allowed. Graffiti and street art however, as long as they are not offensive should be allowed. If you walk by a building that has a huge mural painting on the side, it can be inspirational and beautiful. The mural may not necessarily make sense to you at first, but that’s the best part of murals, you create a definition, almost like abstract painting. Having murals and beautiful paintings aren’t the only good things about street art and graffiti, sometimes you will see encouraging and inspiring sayings or sentences on the side of buildings or even bridges. An example of this is on the 403 bridge, coming off the Lincoln M. Alexander Pkwy, near the silver city in Ancaster, there is many encouraging words spray painted on the bridges, so that when you drive under them you will see them. The city obviously didn’t pay to have someone spray paint “have a nice day :)” , or “smile you’re beautiful” on these bridges but rather someone did this so that it has the possibility of brightening someone’s mood at random, and I know it works for me every time I see it. So all in all, I think that street art and graffiti should be allowed so long as its non-offensive, not tagging, and if it’s on private property they need permission first. There are many people, who are paid to do both street art and graffiti on the sides of buildings, and it makes the building more than bricks, it makes it unique.
In my opinion, graffiti and street art are completely different. I believe that graffiti shouldn’t be allowed, because in a lot of cases, the graffiti isn’t for the better. Sometimes graffiti is very vulgar and/or includes swearing and offensive terms. Graffiti should be whitewashed by city workers because it is not really art. However, street art is usually super cool and friendly for all ages, it doesn’t harm anyone and it is not offensive. Street art should be kept up as long as it’s appropriate. On public property, I think that street art should be allowed but graffiti should not. Graffiti most often offends people or is a gang term or gang “tag”. Graffiti and street art should not be allowed on private property unless they have permission, because it is trespassing. They should not intrude on private property to put their art or work up in spray paint. They need to have permission to go on private property and put spray paint up. On dictionary.com, the definition of graffiti is: writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surfaces and the definition of street art is: any art developed in public spaces. Street art is not harmful to anyone, it is a little bit of fun and artists can express their creativity. Graffiti is not really beneficial and it can be highly offensive as I said earlier. So in conclusion, street art should be allowed anywhere except private property and graffiti shouldn’t be allowed at all.
Tbh, i feel that graffiti is a way to express yourself as a artist/citizen in a way. It is (more often than not) an interesting display of the person(s) talents. However at the same time I must say that frankly there are some people who don’t know where to draw the line between them, via doing there art where it simply put does not need to be. I mean sometimes it works but at least get permission from where you intend to put your stuff…
Thats my input for today.
Street art / graffiti is very prominent in urban life. I like looking at displays of street when I am in the city. Although, some of this art is very impressive, and I like to look at it, I know that it has to be illegal. If the walls that have the street art on them are owned by someone and they don’t approve, than there is no way it could ever be allowed. Alternatively, if there are abandoned areas or buildings, I think it would be a great idea for the city to commission street artists to liven up an area and make it more attractive.
Street art, is fun to look at because all the different ideas people have. I like to look at the creative way street artists work. They should make a place where street artists can display their art to the community and not get in trouble for it. I think as long as the street art looks good, it shouldn’t be whitewashed, but if its an ugly or gang signs it should be.
In my opinion, street art and graffiti are very different. Street art is clever and appealing – meaning we should keep it. Graffiti however is quite ugly and can, at time be very offensive – meaning it should be whitewashed away. I feel that street art, as long as its appealing, should be allowed anywhere within a city since it brings a sort of culture to that city. Just to prove my point heres some beautiful street art 0.0 (its an owls face) pretty sweet I know, this comment just got a bit more classier. Street art seems to be even better experienced if its more condensed to a street or area. There really should be designated areas for street art. Im not sure if I’d want some street art on my house unless it had my pervious approval. All in all, graffiti= bad while street art= good but in the right areas.
“Sorry for the comment” -Borf
I believe that graffiti should not be aloud on public buildings. I feel this way because its vandalism. These buildings are built in a specific way to show the significance of the building. Each building should be left the way there first were. Even with abandoned areas, they should be left clean and graffiti free. When an area has been painted with graffiti, the whole building has been transformed into a whole new building. Overall, graffiti is vandalism.
I am with graffiti art but not in private properties.
Street art is an important form of art by which people express themselves; therefore, it should be allowed but there should be some limitations to it. For example some areas should be dedicated to graffiti, where as others should be off limit. This can also help promote tourism.
Inspirational, its makes want to do the same. Graffiti is art not a crime