Is graffiti really so offensive to everyone (the public) or does the media low it out of proportion?

I find it offensive. It is large and defaces buildings, infrastructure, etc.

Most of it is not art.

I agree with @marinelife defacing private or public property with spray paint is not welcome in my book. Even though some taggers are quite good at the craft, that is no reason or excuse to trash buildings, bill boards, buses and rail cars

In Wichita we have a miles-long, concrete canal that runs along I35. I’ve seen some really artistic graffiti on it! I love it. But they always take it down. I think they should take people with true art skills and turn them lose, within certain parameters!
Same thing with trains….I can’t believe no corporation has thought to use box cars for advertising…..

If it’s defacing private property, it’s bad, but I do think an inordinate amount of attention is paid to it. We hear about “gangs – they deface things!” more than we hear about “gangs – they kill people!”

It depends on the context. There’s an abandoned building in Long Island City, Queens that has become a tagger haven, and it’s visible from the elevated 7 train. Absolutely awesome. I keep meaning to go down there and take some pictures, and I haven’t yet.

I find it ugly, I find the people who create it extremely selfish and it destroys public and private property. I don’t find it to have any artistic value either, at least not most of it. It is forced upon people against their will and often on their own property without any consideration for their wishes or the cost to them to remove it. If you want to tag something, tag a canvas and then if I want to look at it, I’ll buy it and hang it in my house. Or ask the owner of the building if it’s okay for you to create a mural on his building. Taking something that someone else owns and using it for your own enjoyment without regard because you think you are an artiste is always going to be arrogant and selfish in my book.

Yes, it bothers me.

It has nothing to do with aesthetics. “Tagging” is both an act of aggression as well as destruction of property. If it ain’t yours, it isn’t OK for you to leave your mark on it.

@YoBob Exactly. It’s almost like peeing on someone’s property to “mark” your territory.

Suppose you just bought your very first car. You are so proud of the way you saved your money and you paid for your car yourself.

Overnight, someone uses spray paint to write dirty messages on the sides and top of your new car. How would you feel?

Other owners of buildings and trains feel the same way you do.

Well I know that you all may think tagging and graffiti as the same thing but to me I classify Graff as a more complex form of art. I’m not talking about tagging where people run up to a wall and leave a couple eligible scribbles. I speak of the art where the person faces a wall. And leaves a piece that is more then just a name. Its precise. Its complex. Its modern art at another level. I ask about graffiti. Not tagging.

@aprilsimnel have you seen this? My personal favorite.

Graffiti bothers me. If the artist has permission, has been commissioned, that would be a different story, otherwise it is destruction of property and a crime in my opinion. The owner gets to decide how their property is painted, the owner or the covenants that control the property, not some schnook who feels like painting. Too bad punishment for graffiti artists is not equal, like maybe painting all of their clothing, shoes, and bedroom, however the public wants.

Not offensive, just a fucking eyesore. Very little where I live though so that’s okay…..speaking as a selfish bastard of course.

It doesn’t matter if you call it “tagging”, “grafitti”, or any other term you want to attach to it. The bottom line is that it is not OK to deface property that does not belong to you, regardless of your opinion on how beautiful it looks.

Having permission is quite a different story, this is no longer graffiti, but a commissioned mural that was placed there with the consent of the property owner.

In agreement with most. If it doesn’t belong to you, you should not deface it. Although I admit, I tagged the Berlin wall.

My problem with graffiti is this. Most of it is fucking horrible. Just some douche bags writing their names on buildings or some other meaningless drivel.

Graffiti has the potential to be a great form of art and expression. You can do something really beautiful or send a really strong message through it but most seems to degrade to shit like “bob was here”.

Well @optimisticpessimist, since all property of a communist state belongs to “the people” I guess you can claim it was yours to tag. ;)

@ dutchess_lll your the first to actually view the art angle of it. Thank you for having an open mind. :) and @uberbatman your the second. xP I overlooked one good answer. But yes there’s so much more to graffiti then just writing on a wall. I’m sure if you all would take the time to see the reasons behind a REAL artist then maybe you would change your mind a little. Or not.

@yungbeefy I have no problem with graffiti if the ‘artist’ has permission to decorate the building, etc. That begs the question, is it really graffiti, not art, when permission is given?

@yungbeefy It’s not a matter of it being art or not, I think it is art. It is a matter of whether it is defacing someone elses property. If Da Vinci had paited the Mona Lisa on the colleseum, it would have been unnacceptible and removed. Because he painted it on canvas, it has lasted and been protected.

@Jleslie I see your point but does that mean that da Vinci’s work was not a masterpiece? I believe that whether or not its with permission the artwork is still beautiful. I know it is illegal but if paramount pictures can post up their movie ads on a wall and still not get charged for it why can’t a GOOD artist do the same? If cigarette and beer ads can claim a wall that doesn’t belong to them and not get in any trouble for it why can’t an artist put something there that’ll make you stop, stare, and wonder how he or she did it.

It’s a freedom of expression issue. A plain old brick wall or a large, uniformly-painted surface may not fit your aesthetic, but it’s an expression of the aesthetic sensibility of the owner. If you alter that surface, you’re denying them their freedom of expression because you don’t agree with it. That’s a shitty thing to do. It’s narrow-minded.

I’m just as disgusted about the recent story where a woman invited local street artists to paint her wall, then the local potentates made her paint over the art.

I am totally against it being on someones car or window and especially against someone defacing a house but most masterpieces are on a wall that has no use. An alley that is so dull. The LA river was a very known tourist attraction but it was all buffed out. No one is using that at all. Its just there. Rooftops of buildings are a popular spot. They see that it isn’t being used so why shouldn’t an artist make that roof stand out? Its not like the building will get fined for it.

Graffiti has been known to bring the property value of a building up just because that artist is such an inspiration to the community. Not everyone agrees with his work but it attracts tourists. I am not trying to be stubborn. :P it may sound like it but I really jus want to maybe bring a different perspective to the table.

Depends on what it says/its purpose. I believe in culture jamming and defacing certain symbols of this country’s degenerate capitalistic insanity like advertisements, etc.

I would have to add in then to my original thing that it does matter where it is. I dont really think its right if your doing it on someones house or car etc. But like yungbeefy said, is it really that big of a deal to do it on an abandoned building or the side of a tunnel or some other random place of no real use to anyone?

@yungbeefy I agree with you in principle, but it comes down to who gets to decide when it’s OK? How would any community define the boundaries of when a particular surface is up for grabs? Why should your version of what’s OK and not OK be the one that matters, and not a more liberal or restrictive one?

Part of my job, when I go to do an annual inspection of our outside facilities, is to remove all tagging and graffitti from the location. So, I am gonna be opposed to it.
Regarding tagging as art, you could say the same thing about television shows. They are someone’s art. The difference is I have a choice whether I look at their “art” or I don’t.
Forcing me to look at your art is like my forcing you to watch television you may not like at all.

@thorninmud I get your point. Its not like I can do anything even if we all decided that graffiti should be legalized or not. But I think maybe the media just puts it all out of proportion. There was a piece this great piece that was from I think 3rd street to 11th street across the LA river and it was buffed out. But why?? Millions of dollars wasted on painting over this attractive setting and who’s money was used to paint over this? Taxpayers money. I think that was awfully stupid because it wasn’t bugging anyone and it really was huge. I’ll see if I can post up a picture.

Since when is it ok to paint on things that are not yours?
That is why it bothers me aside from the cartoonish,garish colors and letters I usually see.

It’s essentially vandalism regardless of the message, so, I don’t condone it.

Admittedly I got a kick though, while traveling in asia last year, at some of the ‘engrish’ grafitti.

One that stands out was on a wall in an alley in Taipei city…I have a picture…it said….

” INSECT your soul” lolol

@yungbeefy Huh? My point is Divinci’s masterpiece likely would not have made it all of these years. If he had painted in a place he was not allowed to.

An ad is totally different, because the space is bought by the company placing the ad, the owner gave permission, sold the space, and it met with city ordinances.

Do you have some shoes and shirts I can paint what I want on? Maybe a camera or your cell phone, so I can express my art? Or, when you buy a house for $220,000 after working really hard as an adult, can I paint what I want on the side of your house, or do you want to pick the color?

It is more about the person who owns the property than anything. You seem to be thinking only about the onlooker and whether he should think it is art or not. Or, maybe you think commercial buildings and areas should be less protected from graffiti, because it is considered more public, but you are dead wrong. Someone owns the building that houses the factory where shoes are made, or building where computer scientists are devuloping software, or even the public building where social services are given is owned by the public, the government, and the subways are paid for by the city and the people who pay taxes and for subway fare, it is not for you to do as you please, you are not the owner.

@Jleslie first off let me begin by saying I am not a graffiti artist. I wish I had that talent. I’m a great admirer. If I was I wouldnt be dumb enough to ask a question like that. and I jus said that I am mostly asking about abandoned places. Riverbeds, alleys, rooftops, and any other sort of useless objects.. and those ads aren’t always paid for. I say this because I know what i’m talking about. Those wooden walls they set up at contraction sites are not paid for. But they can post up watever they desire. But if its a graffiti artist it is immediately painted over.

Graffiti is an art of protest. It protests against a lot of things: lack of access to property ownership, lack of access to class privileges, poor use of space (both public and private), bad aesthetics and more. Since it is protest against so many things, the people being protested against don’t like it. In particular, owners of things don’t like it. The last thing they would ever do is call it “art.”

Like all art, it is a matter of taste. It is an aesthetic that most people don’t like, primarily because they feel like it is an attack against their culture. It is hoodlum culture, which is to say, in most people’s eyes, not culture at all. If you don’t like the idea that it is hoodlum culture, then look at the roots of the form: young men wandering around with nothing productive to do and no place in society.

I do not mean to disrespect graffiti by calling it an outcome of hoodlum culture. I think it can be beautiful. I think that its ethos of protest is relevant, although I do think most people don’t get it. I’m not even sure the artists get it.

In my town we have an anti-graffiti network that sponsors murals on all the blank walls all over town. This does tend to use space in a way that discourages graffiti. Graffiti tends to appear on poorly used surfaces. Abandoned surfaces. When those surfaces are painted on, they become used surfaces, and graffiti artists and taggers alike seem to respect that. So it does seem to me that, in general, graffitists have a code of conduct that is not entirely anti-social.

Anyway, given its roots and its meme of protest, it is not hard to understand why so many people find it offensive. In addition, it is a special aesthetic that not a lot of people have. You have to be on the edgy side of culture to like it, I think. You have to be a protester of some kind. Well, I’ve spent a lot of my life protesting this and that so it will hardly come as a surprise that I enjoy graffiti art. Indeed, I have a work by Keith Haring hanging in my kitchen. But then, maybe that’s just the white bread approved form of graffiti, and besides, it’s so eighties.

@yungbeefy Ok. Sorry if I failed to read one of your posts well. I would think the ads should be painted over also if they are not paid for. Abandoned, if already an eyesore is a problem. So, its all a problem I guess.

@jleslie Its ok. I should have explained the question better. So either way its a problem but u can make and abandoned building or parking lot be attractive just by having graffiti. I would love to hang out in a spot like that. Its not affecting anyone.
@wundayatta there’s is a code of conduct. Murals are off limits if it is a good muralist and if he doesn’t have any beef with the neighborhood. And you said something about nothing better to do. I think its sometimes all they can do. Some people are born with the skill of playing sports or being able to teach someone else anything or being a mathematician, while others have this skill of drawing. But its not drawing people or flowers in a vase or cartoons. Its drawing a name. I name they call themselves or given to them. I don’t have that skill to draw a name or a person staring into the distance. all I can draw is hideous worms. That’s my art. I don’t put it on a wall because frankly I don’t think anyone would accept it. But those people put those images up on walls because society wont accept em. Because there is no place for them in an art school. There is no place for them to release this skill that they have.

@yungbeefy But, maybe the graffiti people, let’s call them artists, can approach the city and say they want to improve the areas that are derelict? Do it on the up and up?

@yungbeefy I take your point about it being all they can do sometimes. It is a passion, although I doubt if it started as a passion.

When I said nothing better to do, I did not mean there was nothing they could do. I mean there was nothing that society allowed them to do. They are punks and whatever else you might call them because that’s really the only place they are allowed.

I think we are agreed that society won’t accept them, and it is the rebellion against that lack of acceptance that informs their art.

Finally, let me say something about learning to be an artist. Those people became artists because they worked day in and day out to become one. Every artist is like that. They find something they like and they start doing it and then they find they can not stop doing it after a while. You are disrespecting yourself because you think they were born artists. They aren’t. No one is, although everyone likes to say so. Artists become artists because they practice all the time.

The vast, vast bulk of graffiti is the adolescent equivalent of toddlers chasing pigeons – “Look at me, I exist and have agency in this world. I exist, I exist”. It’s beyond pathetic.

I read a story about a man who painted every single inch of his own house, inside and out, with graphic type art. He was a hero.

The ones who paint on surfaces that belong to other people, or the public are criminals.

@jleslie there have been times when the artist try to approach the city’s officials and they shut them down. They call them gang related and often send them to jail to do the time they owe. How are the artist suppose to express themselves if it just isn’t allowed. They can’t even do gallery shows because they get raided by cops and end up doing the time anyway.

@yungbeefy You had my sympathy to the problems dealing with government until you said, send them to jail to do the time they owe. So they are criminals outside of being vandals? I never assumed graffiti artists are convicts also, but I guess a lot of them are?

@jleslie Yea that’s wat they are seen as. Convicts for being artists. Maybe not the right type of artist but that’s honestly wat they are. Artist with skills that they’ve taken years to improve on but the only reason they do it on a wall is because they can’t anywhere else. You can’t get a bachelors degree in graffiti. Colleges see that as a waste of time. But the dumb thing is its on almost every brands tshirt. U see it on everything but when its on a shirt u wear u don’t think about wat that artist had to do to get so good.

@yungbeefy I am confused. So they owe time for being convicted for vandalism? Or, other crimes?

@jleslie For vandalism. Most of them have never done anything else wrong in their life. Of course by now I think u should already know not all graffiti artists are gangsters.

@yungbeefy That’s what I said. I never assume graffiti artists are convicts; meaning, I am not thinking they are guilty of other criminal activity. The owing time you talked about threw me, confused me.

@jleslie yea thats the downside. They are all deviants according to the law.

@yungbeefy Why can’t they paint on canvas? Why must they paint the side of a building? They have easy legal options.

@jleslie They do paint on canvases but they need fame first. The only way people would buy a canvas of graffiti is if the artist is known. But to get known like that they need to be seen. The only way to catch the public’s attention is thru painting on the streets. One thing leads to the other. U can’t start off from the middle.

@yungbeefy That simply isn’t true. Legitimate artists don’t start out famous. They buy canvas, create their art, show it at art shows that are open to the public, enter it in contests or put it up for sale. They ask local businesses if they can display it. People will always be willing to buy art that they find beautiful regardless of whether or not the artist is known. I have many pieces by unknown artists, some of whom are now working painters making a good living solely from their art. One young artist was dating a co-worker. I liked his work so much I bought several. He ended up entering some pieces in a competition and now, several years later, he’s moved to NYC with an internship for his work.

That is how they become known and their art sells more and more. You don’t need fame first. You achieve fame by showing your art at places where people WANT to see it, not by forcing it on people against their wishes and using their property as your personal canvas without their permission. That is simply disrespectful and no one will ever welcome or appreciate it. The difference between graffiti makers and film companies or other advertisers that you mentioned is that the advertisers ask permission of the property owner first and pay for the right to advertise on their property. It’s about respect and not acting like your “art” is so important that you can disregard people’s right to enjoy their own property and decide what they want to do with it.

YES ! We’re not talking about painting skills here. Vandalism is vandalism no matter what the medium. Damn ugly nuisance. We the public do in fact hate it.
Better put by diavolobella “simply disrespectful and no one will ever welcome or appreciate it”. The subways in NYC are unpainted these days thanks mostly to some clever coatings invented a couple decades ago, but I see old movies where the cars roll up looking like trashcans, gee whiz holy cow How can that seem good to anyone?
I got home one night to find some jackoff spraypainting a tag on the side of the building I live in and that is the closest I have spontaneously ever felt to flat out murdering someone. I didn’t touch the guy but he certainly knew what I thought about him and his “art”. I told him (among other things) he was NOT welcome, and he said “well welcome me” – I welcomed him to go paint his damn friends and the damn car waiting for him if they all think it is so entertaining. ooooo! still makes me mad! If it is not welcomed by the owner of the target surface the artist can have that can shoved down his throat for a creative experience why not.
Unwelcomed graffiti is artistic expression as rape is an expression of lovemaking.

@dabbler Unwelcomed graffiti is artistic expression as rape is an expression of lovemaking. Usually I don’t like rape comparisons, but yours is right on.

much appreciated @YARNLADY I was surprised myself to write that. I hope it offends no one and I could never suggest that paint on property is as serious or reprehensible as rape. Yet I think the analogy is actually correct and it is only flawed thinking that either is just good fun, or cool because it involves some kind of rebelliousness or daring or assertiveness.

Even a good graffiti artist has to ask the owner first.

Yes, they should get permission and show an example of what they’d like to do. But..who would give it to them? Me! You can paint the canal route!!

LA has some great examples where permission has been given to paint ‘graffiti’ murals on freeway overpasses and they can be quite successful as community art. Semantic question, is it still graffiti if permission is given? As a candy wrapper isn’t litter unless it’s disposed of incorrectly, if you put it in the can it’s trash.

Graffiti is actually the art. vandalism is the deviant act. Its like saying making posters is wrong.. its not wrong unless u decide to put it on a wall without permission.. where u choose to put it is the problem. just wanted to point that out. Wheat paste is a good example. See when someone puts wheat paste on a wall and puts their poster on it people walk by it and don’t realize how that’s illegal too. Graffiti and wheatpaste are connected but one gets seen as disgusting and the other is just ignored..

@yungbeefy The community I live they charge the very same fines for each type of vandalism.