Graffiti - Mindless Vandalism or Street Art?

BigDaddyCan

been working on a piece for my blog in the last few weeks about the street art of Cork! said I'd post here it here for all you lovely boardsies!

feedback welcome!

PCPhoto

do you want feedback of the images or of the idea (Graffiti - art or vandalism ?)

if its the idea ... I think if the graffiti is good* then its art - if its just a simple tag (someone's signature) .... then its more than likely going to be vandalism.

*good in my opinion would require taking time and using several colours creating a nice piece of work....and not simply turning up with a spraycan and writing your name.

as for the images ...they display the graffiti ...but there is no life/atmosphere.... you could try slow shutter exposures to get blurred people walking past the area...or if/when shooting at night .... use streetlights only.

magicbastarder

it's outside the normal topics discussed here, but it's like most other topics - good graffiti is good, bad graffiti is bad.
tagging really annoys me. that grift chap - if you're going to spray your name all over the city, put a bit of ****ing effort into your tag so it doesn't look like bubble writing your teacher in first year told you not to do.

OldGoat

I've never concidered graffiti to be mindless. Vandalism yes but not mindless. Each act of painting is a deliberate thumbing of the nose to society at large, more often then not on private property and then defended using the guise of 'Art'.
I rate it lower then my first effort at an HDR swan photograph with slider frenzy.

Hogzy

All graffiti of this sort is vandalism. We have recently had our area destroyed in tags from mindless children who have nothing better to do than this. Its a nightmare to clean and it makes the area look dangerous and shabby.

So Yes, al graffiti of this sort is mindless vandalism.

I have seen some spray painting done on "dedicated walls" and if done correctly it can blend quite well into its surroundings. But it is rarely done well.

kfish2oo2

While I agree that the tagging graffiti tends to just be mindless vandalism, I've seen a lot of really cool pieces. Personally I love graffiti, especially portraits and murals - they bring a splash of colour to areas that tend to be dull and gray. I'd much rather live in a city covered in colourful graffiti than one thats rigidly plain, especially in these dull winter months.

Elmar Fudd

Generally I prefer plain walls. Graffitti just adds to visual clutter and they use colours that don't go well together, loud, clashing psychedelic colours.

sineadw

Its a good job no-one from around here was in the National Gallery for Dublin Contemporary so

Logical Fallacy

I've been photographing photography since i first picked up a camera about 4 years ago. My girlfriend does it as well, and she is much better than me at it to be honest. I like to disect the piece and pull a scene from within the detail, she is very good at taking display the piece in the context of it's surroundings.

As an example the below is a small section of a much larger piece, but that section really interested me.

I like graffiti as a subject for photography, depending on the piece and it's location you can get some very nice shots.

cbrlover

It is vandalism.

No mater what the content is or what quality it is, it is still vandalism. Our company have to pay a fortune to have it removed every year. If we don’t, we get notification from the council that we face charges.

PeefsPixie

I love graffiti, its gives the place some personality. Of course some people are ****e and others just put their names or write offensive crap but on a whole I think its brilliant. Wheres the individuality and creativeness in a blank wall??

OldGoat

PeefsPixie wrote: »

Wheres the individuality and creativeness in a blank wall??

/Mental image of the Guggenheim repainted with Banksies doodlings.
:eek:

AnCatDubh

graffiti to my mind is expression of one kind or other - sometimes expressing frustration, sometimes expressing creativity, sometimes expressing art, sometime expressing the profound, sometimes the mundane, but always expression. Thus I never consider it mindless. It is broadly against civic order as it is usually perpetrated on something which is not owned by the perpetrator - thus technically yes vandalism. However, the product of vandalism can be experienced and enjoyed by the beholder. And as with their being many forms of related expression, there are many forms of experience of the output - joy, shock, awe, horror, pleased or displeased, etc.. On it being "Street Art", yes some of it can be but it would be dangerous to have it in a category as art because much of it is expression of frustration with many things in the perpetrators state of existence. So yeah, I prefer to think of it as expression.

sineadw

AnCatDubh wrote: »

On it being "Street Art", yes some of it can be but it would be dangerous to have it in a category as art because much of it is expression of frustration with many things in the perpetrators state of existence. So yeah, I prefer to think of it as expression.

Just curious Tommie; why is something that's an expression of frustration in existence dangerous to class as art? I'd argue that's *exactly* the reason behind some of the very best art out there, and always has been!

I mentioned earlier about the national gallery - during Dublin Contemporary part of the old building housed graffiti. And when i say housed, it was literally sprayed directly onto the walls that usually hold old masters in their frames. TBH I thought the placement was a bit.. juvenile maybe (look at all the crazy graffiti in the NATIONAL GALLERY! We're making a STATEMENT!), but some of it was beautiful. About 80% of it was sh!te, but 20% made up for it. That's roughly what i get looking at *any* contemporary art (including the rest of the exhibitions in DubCon), so to me there was no distinction.

To me there's no difference between street art and any other form of contemporary art. Sticking a label 'art' on things is *always* going to be contentious though. In my head at least it's the same as.. say.. photography: the vast majority of what's produced isn't art. Things that rise above the mundane, that have a strong concept behind them, are. The same applies here, no matter where they're produced.

AnCatDubh

sineadw wrote: »

AnCatDubh wrote: »

On it being "Street Art", yes some of it can be but it would be dangerous to have it in a category as art because much of it is expression of frustration with many things in the perpetrators state of existence. So yeah, I prefer to think of it as expression.

Just curious Tommie; why is something that's an expression of frustration in existence dangerous to class as art? I'd argue that's *exactly* the reason behind some of the very best art out there, and always has been!

Ah, the kind of frustration I meant but didn't articulate well enough is the kind of graffiti at least what I've witnessed where an individual or perhaps working in pairs take a marker or spray can and scrawl something purely in defacement of property which is not in their belonging. It's still an expression of their frustration, or perhaps their upbringing, or their em, individuality, or however you might describe it, but hardly as would be even at an outstretch of the imagination, art (at least not for me).

melekalikimaka

its incredibly rare its not vandalism, paint it any colour you want, its art... somethimes but even when its art it doesnt stop it being vandalism...

tho i love miss van

dinneenp

Really amazing, clever street art/graffiti website here.

I know I'm hyping it up even if you're not into graffiti most in the site is mind blowing.