Graffiti or Art?

[tenni]

I am a visual artist and this issue has puzzled me for awhile. In Toronto, there is presently a new mayor who is actively and aggressively trying to enforce graffiti laws and fines to property owners who do not clean up the graffiti. Now most of us can look at "tagging" and decide that it is not very nice to look at. We can declare it vandalism and agree with him that it should be removed. However, when does it stop being graffiti and become a mural art is a bit more complicated.

In one neighbourhood in Toronto, home owners have actually hired graffiti artists to cover up images that the owner decided was vandalism with a more pleasant graffiti art. The city "inspectors" and it seems some neighbourhood council get to decide. They have ordered the homeowners to remove the graffiti art. A newspaper (The Toronto Star) sought out "experts" to help the homeowners out. Here is what they said about a couple of "murals" versus "graffiti vandalism.



So, where does graffiti end and art begin? We asked experts to weigh in.

295 Maria St. (black and white flowers)

Paul Aloisi, an artist and instructor at OCAD, describes this mural as “a lively growing garden with unique flowers.”

“Time and care has clearly been put into that,” he says. The painting must have started with a sketch and involved a process of sorts. “It’s done very intentionally and with care.”

297 Maria St. (cityscape)

“That is an art mural,” Aloisi says. “Beautiful sunset. There’s a reference to nature.”

Paul Wise, director of Gallery 133, a fine art gallery on Castlefield Ave. near Caledonia Rd., says he doesn’t find either of the Maria St. murals offensive. “They’re pleasant, they’re decorative, they’re colourful,” he says. “It’s not something I would hang in the gallery for resale, but I don’t find it offensive.”

230 Ryding Ave. (SO)

Steve Ferrara, the founder and co-director of Well and Good, a self-funded organization that provides support for artists, including graffiti artists, says this mural is more likely to be considered graffiti than the others because of the letters.

“It might not be the most beautiful piece of artwork, it may not be this incredible mural but. . . it’s not vandalism,” he says. “I think that’s an important distinction that is very lost, and actually not even considered when it comes to the graffiti bylaw.”

How does your community deal with distinguishing between graffiti vandalism and graffiti art?

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/936031--art-or-graffiti-art-experts-weigh-in?bn=1

[DuckiesDarling]

I live in a rural area so we don't have any "taggers" and the graffiti is limited to Billy Bob loves Charlene on road supports where the overpass comes over the road from I65. Every once in awhile when they have time out from fixing the potholes and other issues with the roads, the state department will paint over the hearts and forever words until the next group of high schoolers does it.

Undeniably grafitti is art, it's created. When it becomes vandalism is when it's done without the property owner's consent whether it's "political" or not.

[bigbadmax]

What about banksy..is he not an artist?

[Diva667]

Art is done with the owners permission (either before or after the fact) and approval, graffiti is done without regard to ownership of the property.

Its a lot like the difference between weeds and flowers. A weed is a flower that grows in the wrong location. A rose that grows in the middle of your lawn, where you don't want it, is every bit of the weed as the common dandelion.

Thus graffiti that is done on phone boxes, trains and other public places is(generally) unwanted because it was not commissioned or approved. But the same work done on a building or wall that has commissioned such a piece is art.

[bigbadmax]

Very few of banksy's pix are given permission.

[tenni]

Excellent point Bigbadmax
Banksy is exactly an example of differentiating between vandalism and the "higher" calibre of graffiti as art.

Here is Banksy's website.
http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/outuk/horizontal_1.htm
http://jetcomx.com/2008/09/03/banksy-stirs-up-some-controversy-on-his-trip-to-new-orleans-and-alabama/

These outdoor works are placed without permission on buildings. He is not the only artist who places art in public places that is deemed not only controversial because of what/how he does this but the quality of the art that is recognized internationally.

In this particular case of the OP, the owners want the graffiti and have hired someone to paint it over other graffiti that they did not want. It is the city's inspectors that are insisting that the owners cover up the graffiti or they will be fined. It doesn't seem to matter to some whether the owner has given permission or not..whether they be the artist or the inspector.

Others argue that the graffiti art is the art of the disadvantaged and minorities. There is no denying from my perspective that the quality varies greatly. The strength of Banksy's imagery is amazing and sets him very high above a tagger. There is intelligence and visual criticism of our society in many of his works.

[Diva667]

Excellent point Bigbadmax
Banksy is exactly an example of differentiating between vandalism and the "higher" calibre of graffiti as art.

Here is Banksy's website.
http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/outuk/horizontal_1.htm
http://jetcomx.com/2008/09/03/banksy-stirs-up-some-controversy-on-his-trip-to-new-orleans-and-alabama/

These outdoor works are placed without permission on buildings. He is not the only artist who places art in public places that is deemed not only controversial because of what/how he does this but the quality of the art that is recognized internationally.

In this particular case of the OP, the owners want the graffiti and have hired someone to paint it over other graffiti that they did not want. It is the city's inspectors that are insisting that the owners cover up the graffiti or they will be fined. It doesn't seem to matter to some whether the owner has given permission or not..whether they be the artist or the inspector.

Others argue that the graffiti art is the art of the disadvantaged and minorities.

Is there a law or regulation that is in effect?

I know of a small town that has regulations that require the houses in the town to be painted in a certain manner & color schemes. The home owner who buys into communities in that town is in essence forced into what the city deems appropriate for his property.

Likewise there are HOA's and other organizations that place such (and other) requirements / regulations(AKA covenants) in the deed for the houses that would prevent owners from doing as they wished.

Also, In most western based societies (US, UK, Can) we have what is called eminent domain - whereby the government can take the property, usually for any justifiable reason, at will. This also covers condemning any property that is seen as a public nuisance / hazard usually under the guise of public safety. This is also where code enforcers (building inspectors) derive most of their powers.

As far as Banksy I would still consider what he does as graffiti, technically correct and well executed, but graffiti nonetheless. As it is un-asked for and generally unwanted.

[bigbadmax]

One of Banksy's artworks is on the side of a bldng near an office I use. It always perks me up.
Art is a personal thing- I personally dislike the Mona Lisa, bad taste, maybe but its my taste.

[tenni]

Well, the "philosophy" that art is a personal thing only goes so far. Whether you like a piece of art is a personal thing. The value of a piece of art is another. I think that Banksy communicates with many people and especially artists. Whether a piece of art graffiti is art and valued is another matter as well. The question of vandalism is another. The two can be in conflict even when the work is of such a high quality as Banksy.

Certainly, the image that Banksy placed of a KKK man hanging on a dilapidated building in the southern US spoke volumes politically and therefore aesthetically (won't go into aesthetics being so much more than "pretty"). The reaction of someone swirling a spray paint can to cover up the hanging KKK person is another. The person who covered up the work was not improving the building but making a counter political statement of disagreement. Which had aesthetic value is clear to me. Unlike some taggers Banksy and some other graffiti artists actually make a decision as to what building and what section of the building should have the stencil or spray painted image.

The value of an artwork that a society places on it is determined by the aesthetic value and its ability to "speak" to many. Whether Banksy and other graffiti artists will have a long term value is debatable. I suspect that with documentation of these works, they will be valued beyond personal taste just as performance art has a value only through its documentation over a time period longer than the performance.

ok..probably getting too artsie here...lol


One of Banksy's artworks is on the side of a bldng near an office I use. It always perks me up.
Art is a personal thing- I personally dislike the Mona Lisa, bad taste, maybe but its my taste.

[tenni]

Graffiti (singular: graffito; the plural is used as a mass noun) is the name for images or lettering scratched, scrawled, painted or marked in any manner on property. Graffiti is any type of public markings that may appear in the forms of simple written words to elaborate wall paintings. Graffiti has existed since ancient times, with examples dating back to Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire.

As to whether there is a law or regulation, the answer is yes. The bylaw states that the owner of the building is responsible to remove graffiti within a certain time or be fined. I think that if it isn't done in a certain time then the city covers over the graffiti and charges back to the owner but I'm not sure. I'm not sure how much the fine is either. In the case of these particular houses, the owners did cover the graffiti by taggers. They made a conscious choice of selecting a graffiti artist whose style that they liked. I don't think the article indicated it but I'd suspect the owner may have even given guidance as to what imagery that they wanted. The artists may have even been paid(article doesn't say) Still, the city inspectors have declared the work graffiti vandalism. The smaller community council will be tasked to make a decision and I don't think that has happened. Now, that the newspaper has asked professionals to make a statement on the quality of the graffiti as art may come into play. What qualifications do the inspectors have? I suspect that they have no aesthetic training.

The question is probably not whether Banksy's work is graffiti as much as whether it is vandalism that should be removed. Banksy's work has monetary and cultural value. He is now going around the world placing his work where he deems. I believe that he follows graffiti artist custom of doing it quickly, usually at night and without permission. There has been great protest when some "official" actually painted over a Banksy's work without the building owner's permission or Banksy. Very slippery issues and questions. kinda fun to consider though..for artsies and other interested people...:bigrin:





Is there a law or regulation that is in effect?

I know of a small town that has regulations that require the houses in the town to be painted in a certain manner & color schemes. The home owner who buys into communities in that town is in essence forced into what the city deems appropriate for his property.

Likewise there are HOA's and other organizations that place such (and other) requirements / regulations(AKA covenants) in the deed for the houses that would prevent owners from doing as they wished.

Also, In most western based societies (US, UK, Can) we have what is called eminent domain - whereby the government can take the property, usually for any justifiable reason, at will. This also covers condemning any property that is seen as a public nuisance / hazard usually under the guise of public safety. This is also where code enforcers (building inspectors) derive most of their powers.

As far as Banksy I would still consider what he does as graffiti, technically correct and well executed, but graffiti nonetheless. As it is un-asked for and generally unwanted.

[bizel]

a plant growing in the wrong spot, is a weed. i think art is the same. if someone had painted the mona lisa in the wrong spot, it would be graffiti. there are rules to society and like it or not, they are there for a reason. there are of course, such wonderful pieces of originality that flaunt the rules and i considered them art. and there is an area in melbourne that is exclusively for street artists, and the alleyways have become a tourist attraction cos the art is so good (but i think there are probably rules attached to that as well). having said that, tagging to me is not art, it's pure vandalism. people who do it deserve a good kick up the arse. it's art litter. not good enough to last any distance of time.

[Annika L]

a plant growing in the wrong spot, is a weed. i think art is the same. if someone had painted the mona lisa in the wrong spot, it would be graffiti. there are rules to society and like it or not, they are there for a reason. there are of course, such wonderful pieces of originality that flaunt the rules and i considered them art. and there is an area in melbourne that is exclusively for street artists, and the alleyways have become a tourist attraction cos the art is so good (but i think there are probably rules attached to that as well). having said that, tagging to me is not art, it's pure vandalism. people who do it deserve a good kick up the arse. it's art litter. not good enough to last any distance of time.

I could not have said it better!

[tenni]

hmm
Annika & bizel
I can accept the analogy about a plant growing in the wrong place is a weed but not necessarily the comparison to art. Art exists wherever an artist choses to place it if it is meant to be site specific (ie installations). This is particularly true for works that are meant to be in the outdoor public areas. Usually installations do receive the permission of the owner of the building or municipality. The question then is about graffiti that has its significance decided not by property owners but the supposed oppressed (whether for political or ethnic reasons etc.)

Although I understand bizel's desire to make a comparison to the Mona Lisa, it is a painting on wood and not site specific. It is no longer in its place of origin but that doesn't make it a weed or graffiti. The cultural value of the Mona Lisa has been established over centuries or confirmation by generation after generation as a significant work of Da Vinci. (one interesting recent statement that I read had homoerotic overtones. It stated that the real model for the Mona Lisa was in fact one of Da Vinci's assistants and Da Vinci's lover..not a woman at all?)

Graffiti is defined in the above post as markings, painting on property. The fact that bizel accepts that originality that flaunts rules as acceptable but then why not accept graffiti as breaking the rules? The evaluation of piece of art's significance is not a democratic decision made by the uneducated. (screams of protest predicted..;) )

bizel's statement regarding tagging or the more common forms of such graffiti I would agree with. It depends where the line distinguishing graffiti art from graffiti that has little to no cultural value. The issue is who decides where that line is.

* I know such an ass at times.

[Annika L]

hmm
Annika & bizel
I can accept the analogy about a plant growing in the wrong place is a weed but not necessarily the comparison to art. Art exists wherever an artist choses to place it if it is meant to be site specific (ie installations). This is particularly true for works that are meant to be in the outdoor public areas. Usually installations do receive the permission of the owner of the building or municipality. The question then is about graffiti that has its significance decided not by property owners but the supposed oppressed (whether for political or ethnic reasons etc.)

Although I understand bizel's desire to make a comparison to the Mona Lisa, it is a painting on wood and not site specific. It is no longer in its place of origin but that doesn't make it a weed or graffiti. The cultural value of the Mona Lisa has been established over centuries or confirmation by generation after generation as a significant work of Da Vinci. (one interesting recent statement that I read had homoerotic overtones. It stated that the real model for the Mona Lisa was in fact one of Da Vinci's assistants and Da Vinci's lover..not a woman at all?)

Graffiti is defined in the above post as markings, painting on property. The fact that bizel accepts that originality that flaunts rules as acceptable but then why not accept graffiti as breaking the rules? The evaluation of piece of art's significance is not a democratic decision made by the uneducated. (screams of protest predicted..;) )

bizel's statement regarding tagging or the more common forms of such graffiti I would agree with. It depends where the line distinguishing graffiti art from graffiti that has little to no cultural value. The issue is who decides where that line is.

Oh please, tenni. Surely you recognize that bizel's point about the Mona Lisa is that if analogous brushstrokes had been done on the side of a building owned by someone who didn't particularly want a bland-expressioned woman on their building, that would have been grafitti. She was clearly *not* saying that where the painting is hung could make it grafitti. Don't be ridiculous in trying to make a point...I think you have enough of a point that it's not necessary to become ridiculous to make it.

Now let me be ridiculous in return (as it is my turn). You say that grafitti is "markings or painting on property". Well, sheesh, by that yardstick, all paintings are grafitti. Surely, Da Vinci's canvas was his property.

My take on bizel's statement about considering some grafitti as art was that THERE EXIST SOME grafitti works that are so unconventionally beautiful that even though they are grafitti, she also considers them to be art. I agree with her on that. She is not listing unconventionality or rule-breaking as a condition under which grafitti automatically becomes art...she's just saying that SOME grafitti rises to that level...to her. Some does to me as well. I doubt either of us gives a damn what experts would say about it *expecting cries of outrage from experts*.

Who decides where that line between grafitti art and grafitti non-art is? Obviously, experts think it's them. But I *know* it's me.

"Having cultural value" isn't a static or absolute quality...it varies heavily by culture and over time. In the culture of the oppressed to whom you refer, even coarse grafitti can have strong value. In the culture of wall-owners, who occasionally have to deal with having their property used as a medium, it is valued quite differently. To the average passer-by, value varies all over the place, as it is considered variously art, text/statement, vandalism, or not-worthy-of-regard-of-any-kind. Is it picked up on? Is it copied or emulated (either the message or the way it's conveyed)? You missing the trashcan when you throw your lunchbag away can have strong cultural value, if the right person sees it and is moved in the right way.

Frankly, I think there is much more cultural significance to the fact that grafitti persists as a form of expression (and in particular, that it has evolved to the point where some of it *is* genuinely artful) than there is to any single piece of grafitti. That's a very novice observation, but I'm not trying to impress experts (*smiles, expecting cries of "oh you haven't!"*).

[sammie19]

Isnt it a case of art being what we as individuals see as art? Surely it shouldnt matter who owns what grafitti is daubed on? If someone thinks it is art, then it is art to them. I think much grafitti is incredibly artistic and whether it is on a building or a train carriage I see it as art.

A lot of graffiti is just scribblings and often offensively so. Joe loves Mary, that sort of thing. Or some racist taunt such as Send blacks home, No Poles here. Although if something is daubed in beautiful calligraphy, does that then make it art? If such etched or sprayed taunts or expressions are accompanied by a well depicted man fucking a woman, or a painting of a queue of blacks being shown the door from the UK, can those be considered art? I think they are things which we can argue about, and think it offensive, but in my view are artistic expressions of what to many are offensive messages or depictions for a public place. They may be bad art, but not all art is good.

I am an amateur artist, can spray paint and do it quite well. When a teenager I sprayed grafitti on walls and buildings. I think what I did was quite artistic, and think it to be an art form. I dont think the fact that if caught I would have prosecuted as a vandal for doing so stops what I did being art simply because I didnt own the property. Others think differently and that is the point of art. It is the freeest form of expression and the artist's vision. Where and upon what an artistic endeavour is painted is not important. Art is much too personal to dismiss as not being art because we do not like it, and where it is depicted is unimportant. Being a vandal and messing up the end of a building does not prevent something being art either to the artist or to those who view it. It does not make it art to everyone, but if one person believes it to be so, then so it is. We may not like it, but we cannot dismiss it.

[Diva667]

In some ways I see this as a false dichotomy - the choice is that it is either art OR graffiti, can it not be both? It is a binary choice, and we do not live in such a world as that.

However then comes the hard discussion of vandalism and destruction of others property.

I wonder how a graffiti artist would feel if their work was cut out of a wall and sold for a large amount of money - the money going to the property owner, not the artist. But it isn't out of the realm of possibilities. How much do you think a Banksy would go for, if sold at auction? Do you think he would sit still while his work was sold by someone else?

[tenni]

Diva & Sammie
Great! You have expressed some wonderful thoughts and questions.

Sammie is correct that the expression of the artist has a personal aspect but the evaluation of its merit of any art goes beyond the personal expression aspect. As I understand it the works that are created on property (graffiti) are done without a concept of ownership. The graffiti artist accepts that it may be destroyed while others in society want it kept or removed. There is to some extent an issue amongst taggers as to whether they will overspray another person's graffiti. I'm not sure but the taggers who busy themselves with this may overspray an enemy's tag as in a gang situation.

Other graffiti artists do function on a "higher"? level of ethics? In the example of someone cutting out a Banksy graffiti and selling it, I think that may have been done but I'm not sure. Due to the legal questions for graffiti artists some do hide their identity while others are known.

The false dichotomy that Diva refers to is perhaps correct in my title but there still is a question about whether graffiti should be destroyed or not. Not all graffiti is recognized as worthy expression of art. The lower form is not art but just tagging that is deemed having not aesthetic merit. The problem is that municipalities dismissed it as well as graffiti that has artistic merit and demand that it be removed(even if the property owner wants it). The fact that a Banksy has reached such international status means little to some city officials when they say that it should be covered up. Or in the case of the spray paint covering up Banksy of a hanging KKK person which is vandalism?...are they both...Banksy and the person who covered it up because they probably objected to the message?

[tenni]

Annika
Good points. I guess my big mouth problem is what do I let go by and what do I comment on when the person is attempting to make a point but basing it on questionable grounds. If you know that a false statement is being made, should you comment or shut up. I'm also processing what is written as I stated I have mixed thoughts about the valuation of graffiti and how municipalities deal with it.

All paintings are not graffiti though Annika. The wiki definition states that graffiti is markings (or paintings) on property. I suppose that property should include comments about buildings but bathroom walls with markings, drawings, does qualify as graffiti while framed posters on the same wall do not. Murals on buildings are technically graffiti. Markings or overpaintings of an object such as a vase may or may not qualify as graffiti...not sure. Placing a moustache on the Mona Lisa would be vandalism for sure....graffiti...hmm probably not? As Diva states the major problem is the vandalism aspect. The aspect of ownership of property being altered without your permission. The OP refers to the municipality declaring that even if you gave permission that they are going to call it "graffiti" ..(true) but give it the same negative don't do it. Remove it or else threat.

[darkeyes]

Throughout the history of art there have been detractors. Even of those we regard now as the very greatest of artists. Van Gogh could hardly sell a painting because the establishment looked down on it and did not consider his work art. Gaugin even today has many detractors who still refuse to give him credit for producing art. Both the Impressionists and PreRaphaelites endured much hostility before being recognised as true artists by both the establishment and by the public at large.. this continues to this day and many artists are not recognised as capable of producing art. It is a snobbery which has held back the development of art and crushed many very promising artists whose work will never see the light of day. Yet some will in time be recognised as truly great and others will be recognised as outstandingly innovative and skilful artists. The medium in which they work is not important.. their contribution to the human experience and to our appreciation of the human imagination and achievement will be recognised despite the shock horror felt by the establishment and those whose vision is much more constrained than any artist.

Graffiti artists are no different.. they have made and are making a contribution to art which is recognised as both wonderfully skilful and has great artistic merit. It is art. Who owns what it is sprayed on or etched on is unimportant.. the triumph of the imagination is what is important.. the imagination of human being who plumb the depths of their souls and produce often the most astonishingly beautiful work.. often we havent a clue what it is, and sometimes wonder if the artist himself knows.

I hear so called experts waffle the most awful drivel about what an artist is trying to say. They make it up as they go along I am sure a good half the time. Does art have to say something? I dont think so. That it often does, and is a very personal message of the artist is undeniable and many of the greatest artists do try to say much in their art. El Greco and Picasso having done so in two of my favourite paintings of the inhumanity of man to his own kind displaying brutal events in a single country 120 years apart. Graffiti artists in their way are no less important.. they are modern day innovators and expressionists of a style which often, although not always tells us something of importance.

Neither does art of necessity have to be permanent.. often I have watched on a beach as the most wonderful sand sculptures are produced, and chalk drawings on a pavement. Are these not form of graffiti being produced on someone elses property? These too often say much to the observor.. it doesnt matter if an artists vision sprayed painted on a wall is destroyed.. what matters is that it was produced in the first instance.. all things are temporary.. art is no different and will not last forever.. but it will last in the minds of many who have seen it very often for as long as they live..

Art is art when the artist intends it to be. However poor or brilliant the skill involved. We may or may not like it, and we may say "Christ, that is shite", but something intended as an art form, however poorly executed, which comes from the human imagination is art from the matchstick figures produced by a child, to the mangled mess made from plasticine intended to be mummy or the ham handed very poor watercolourist. There is a snobbery afoot about art which all too many of us buy into.. that something is not art because it seems to represent nothing, is just a pile of boxes, or circles painted on a canvas with a pink background. It may not be the greatest of art, or the most imaginative and skilfully produced but we dismiss it at our peril.. for it is the vision of the artist.. the child, the lunatic even, the technically impoverished.. they produce what they can and are able to as best they can.. all artists do.. some take the piss out of us by much of their art, and kid us on.. but that does not stop something being art.. its just that we can be fooled liked anyone else.. maybe thats why there is so much snobbery about just what art is I dont know..

So to all of us I say this.. do not belittle works within the art world just because you do not like it, or where it is produced or who owns whatever is produced or upon what..or because u dont like the message or there is no message... because we do not understand or have no taste for it.. not liking it or finding it of little or no aesthetic value is fine.. but that does not make something not an art form.. the subjectivity of the human mind, however much we try to be objective, will never allow us to be entirely qualified to judge. To dismiss is to close the mind.. to struggle and try and understand it quite the opposite.. whatever we think of it in the end..

Sam says art is humanity's most free endeavour. I agree with that sentiment. Only music comes close and contributes as much to our humanity if in different ways. Yet that is also an art form which can truly free the mind.. Art, and graffiti's place within it challenges our ability to think and be free more than anything else we have.. don't knock it..

[DuckiesDarling]

I don't agree that it makes no difference where the graffiti is painted or what is painted. I have stated graffiti is art, it's created, it's art. But you also have the vandalism side of things. Van Gough was not a vandal, neither was Gaugin or Rembrandt or Picasso.

When I think of graffiti I do not think of the murals that are a testament to the solidarity and regeneration of a neighborhood. I think of taggers and their gang paraphenalia on the sides of buildings intended to terrorise a group of residents.

There is a difference in what Tenni asked in his OP. Should people have to remove graffiti from their personal buildings if they don't have a problem with it? Depends on the laws pertaining to that type of behaviour. There are places where you can't even paint an INTERIOR wall a color that people don't agree with, no matter that it can't be seen by a casual observer. There are areas where all the houses must be uniform and kept, that means clean yard and well no graffiti.

We are ranging far and wide from the actual question. Yes, grafitti is art, but where it is painted and what is painted is as pertinent as anyone's opinion regarding it's value.

[darkeyes]

Art can be can be both vandalism and vandalised by being situated in the wrong place.. weeds are but flowers in the wrong place as they say.. even the greatest of art can be a bit of a weed if placed in the wrong location.. save it if we can, but sadly thats not always possible.. but sometimes the location can be altered to save the work of art from being vandalised.. sadly, in the case of much of the best of graffiti.. that isnt always possible either..

[Arthas]

Well, I do graffiti, but I'm no artist. Usually there are political statements and I use simple plastic or metal template and just spray it. Yeah, it's illegal and I'm aware of it. I'll sooner or later be punished for my crimes. When they caught me. And that will take a lot of time. :cool:

But, there are a lot of artists and I know a few of them and there are several annual competitions. For example, T-mobile, Vodafone, Erste and several other larger companies organize competition(s), and the winner(s) is(are) awarded with monetary prizes, or several teams get to make their own graffiti on designated places. Usually new/cleaned walls. There are also questionnaires and other things to determine theme of graffiti (depending where it's positioned and on what occasion). This is usually very rare, mostly they're given space and freedom but it mustn't be anything inappropriate.

Some graffiti are left especially if they concern our recent civil war.

[Long Duck Dong]

there are buildings that are considered form of artful expression.... and to me and many they are forms of wasted tax payer funds for something that looks like a giant pile of streaming shit

to me, art is in the eye and the mind of the beholder, in the same way that beauty is....... and in the same way that one mans rock and roll is anothers mozart......

art is what art is... a form of expression...... and by that standard, my fist in your face is a form of art, the blood splatter, the compression of the facial structure, the musical form of the ambulance, the unique nature of the stitches..... yeah... even me breaking your face for spray painting the side of my face, is a form of art and expression

and if the law against breaking your face, applies to me and my form of art expression, than surely, other laws hold precedence as well with your artful expression on the side of my house, being regarded as vandalism....

[darkeyes]

Not all graffiti of course is art.. certainly not the stuff under me desk lid at school.. certainly not a lot of the stuff which was scrawled in the toilets.. like MP L DE, Dave E(surname) has a huge knob, and in a different style Dave (surname) likes boys, and one also dated mid 60's "I love Dandy" (me dad's nickname wen a kid). Several other references to this Dave guy some dated, some not, but all in the mid 1960s...now since my high school was a single sex secondary school in those days, for girls only, I wonder just who this MP is? Since DE and the Dave guy could well be me dad as he lived in the area in those days it does get me to wondering.. who tf is the cow who inferred my dad liked boys? And if it is me dad.. did he an MP eva get up 2 things they shudn? I did ask me dad outa girlish devilment moren 1ce.. he said he hadn a clue.. but he wud wudn he? Wetha or not it was him, an wetha or not he was a naughty boy it has given me much opportunity 2 take the michael outa the ole fool eva since..

In my 4th year at school there was a huge clear out of old school furniture.. the old school was given a makeover an 40 years and more and old graffiti disappeared.. the place became for a time, pristine.. imagine the disappointment when all that historical record of moments in time was lost.. in duller moments that graffiti was all that kept us awake!!!

Now while I accept much graffiti is art.. not all.. simple scrawls such as the kind of stuff above have no artistic merit whatever.. it is graffiti at its most primitive and basic.. but it obviously kept some people happy away back when Noah was a lad!!!