Art or Not?

Art can not be defined in Webster's terms. It isn't clearly stated by this picture one way or another. Therefore because there is not a definite explanation as to whether it is art or not I believe it is. Art is an expression, it doesn't have to be drawn or painted it just has to be let out in some sort of creative way. This expression might not have been done by one person but that, I think, makes all the more beautiful.

Agreed

I love what some of my fellow classmates have come up with. I do agree that there is a difference between art in a vandalism sense and art in a visually pleasing sense. On my comment earlier in the year I previously mentioned that I believed that anything created from God or man is art and I still hold true to this statement. However, some of my classmates have brought to my attention that this graffitti is determined by its main purpose. I agree. Was this graffitti meant to just be a senseless word scribbled on the side of a building or was it put there to be aesthetically pleasing to the viewer? I guess like I mentioned earlier, only "the eye of the beholder" can dictate whether or not this is a piece of art. I really don't have anything else to say except that I loved what everyone else published. It showed me different perspectives I was previously blind to.

Is it Art?

I believe that grafiti has the ability to be considered art. This doesn't mean that all grafiti is art. The definition of art is subjective to whomever defines it. In my opinion, a piece is art if the person who created it put feeling and hard work into it. I also believe that the level of artistic value a piece holds depends on what the viewer brings to it (emotionally and experiences). For example, if someone who has never had any similar experiences as the artist sees the grafiti, they might not see past the illegality of the piece. However, if someone with similar experiences and emotions were to see the piece, they might see a deeper meaning in it and consider it to be artistic. I personally enjoy to see grafiti in certain areas, such as blank concrete walls along a highway, but I don't believe it belongs on historic buildings or similar areas. I don't like the fact that many gangs use grafiti as territory markings. I believe the artistic credibility of grafiti could be increased if it weren't used as gang markings.

The View from Here

It is hard to write what you feel to be an original idea when you can see every idea that has come before you. I identify with the graffiti creator in this. He sees every idea and design that the canvas of the building has seen and he tries to come up with an original idea, something uniquely his own.

My idea of the artistic value of the graffiti is based purely on how I view it. Just glancing at a building with graffiti on it does not register as art. However if I stopped and looked at the building, it would have a chance of being art. Then the graffiti itself would have to pass an obscenity test. Finally I would have to find it pleasing to the eye to call it art.

This seems process seems complicated but almost everyone goes through something similar every time they look at something that is creative. As to the picture, which piece of graffiti, because all the parts together is distracting, and detracts from each individual piece.

It's What You Make of It

I don't see why this wouldn't be considered art. Obviously, whoever worked on this is had reason behind it and for whatever that reason may be, it holds meaning to them. Putting their work on a building is just the way they chose to express themselves and it may even add pupose to their work from their point of view. Whether or not you agree with this shouldn't alter your opinion of it being art. I, personally, don't think it looks attractive or find it interesting at all. I'm sure the creator sees it from a whole different perspective, though.

Art

This art is somewhat aesthetically pleasing to me. Graffiti is definitely art though. Art is not always pleasing to everyone. I think that Graffiti can look very cool, but can also make an area look bad. Graffiti is often associated with poverty and gangs, so this may make some people look down at it. I think graffiti is just someone expressing themselves. Art can be a great way to express yourself. I don't know if doing it on walls is always the best place though.

Trash is art. Why not the defacement of public property?

I believe that this picture shows an artist's masterpiece.  Art is the expression of an artist's thoughts and emotions using any type of resource to do that.  These artists have decide spray painting a wall would convey their message.  In comparison, some artists choose to express themselves by using trash.  Trash art seems crude and unusual but it still holds an inner beauty that art is meant to show.  So I say that if trash is art, then defacing public property is.