Drawar

I think if the graffiti is intended to be art, then it is. If it's just some kid 'tagging' a playground ride or park bench, then that is just vandalism. Spending a lot of time in Brighton in my youth taught me to appreciate graffiti differently, particularly when it is well done, like the example you linked to.

Yeah, it's the context that makes it art or vandalism. Your link was art. A lot of graffeti is gang related, staking out territory and even a newpaper of sorts (spreading the word of what happened to members who can interpret the message). In major urban areas, cops are specially trained to read it also.

Apparently Melbourne, where I am in Australia, is home to some of the largest amounts of graffiti in the world. However, most all of it is supposedly not related to gang activity, which is pretty interesting. Anyway, I agree with Auburn and Ollie, that it all has to do with the context.

My boyfriend and I, both pretty staunch Libertarians politically, have discussed this a few times, because while we think graffiti can be an enjoyable public art show, we also believe in people's property rights, in which case even art isn't always desired. If it's your business getting tagged, you don't necessarily even want a work of art sprayed onto the side of your building; you just want your building to "look like it should."

So while we quibble over the context, I have to wonder if that even matters to a majority of the people who have it happen to their personal, private properties. I'm not sure I'd be able to accept a work of art put onto the side of my home/business, without someone asking me for permission first. That seems like vandalism, no matter what, really.

Tough to come to a proper conclusion.

JPhill... THAT is art...

This is vandalism...

Read sometime back about urban backlash against graffiti ads commissioned by Sony. They were promoting the Sony brand and products, and apparently those corporate figures think the medium art enough to advertise. So ... *shrugs in bewilderment*

Yeah I think there is a fine line. Even some of the best graffiti work I've seen is normally found on buildings and/or trains which would be considered vandalism. In that case, though, where would graffiti fit into society as an art form?

There are some places/walls that are specifically allotted for legal graffiti. :) Here's a site about it. I think Denmark was the country that started creating areas and walls for legal graffiti, though I'm not sure.

Several businesses in San Antonio, TX commissioned graffiti artists to decorate their buildings.

JPhill, my first reaction to that is "art" BUT then I wonder, where is it, and what do the owners of the building and the other people who reside or do business near it think of it? They have to look at it everyday, not me.

So while we quibble over the context, I have to wonder if that even matters to a majority of the people who have it happen to their personal, private properties. I'm not sure I'd be able to accept a work of art put onto the side of my home/business, without someone asking me for permission first. That seems like vandalism, no matter what, really.

I quite agree that anything added to my home or business would be unacceptable, unless it was my idea. However, what if my neighbor commissioned a "work of art" for the side of their building, and I didn't consider it "art?" There is a building in a town not far from where I live that has been completely covered in what I would consider graffiti, and I have to assume that the owners did it themselves, or paid to have it done. The building is in one of those mixed business and residential areas that are so prevalent in the older parts of towns in Germany, so there is plenty of foot and car traffic, but also people living there as well.

If I had a pic, I'd post it, but I don't have time right now to go get one. :( It's just an eyesore though, and I'm glad I don't live near it. The line between graffiti and art is a fine line indeed, and very subjective.