Graffiti - art or bullsht?

David has offered graffiti as a possible subject for the current weekly competition. OK, its an interesting subject from our point of view, and 'art' is a very flexible concept, but the graffiti on general view seems naive, ugly and tedious. OK, Banksy has introduced humour, but would you really like it on the side of your house? Or even on the inside?

It depends on the graffiti. Just a simple tag - no that is not art, but some is indeed art, and I would happily have it on, or in my house.

I went to the Banksy exhibition in Bristol. It was the best exhibition I have been to either art or "museum" exhibition. It was funny, thoughtful, provocative, talented, artistic, clever. It was acclaimed critically and all the comments I heard from visitors were positive. It bumped into one of the world's most popular exhibitions. I queued for two hours and was about 20th in through the door.

I would jump at the chance of a Banksy on the side of my house as I could then afford a 645D and lenses.

There are some really dire mindless, examples of painting and photography. I'm sure there are dire examples of mindless graffiti too.

Art covers a wide, wide spectrum. Photography too. The BJP had a ad for its HD-DSLR vid comp!!!! this month. You can get inspiration from many places and whilst some graffiti in not necessarily any good, it can still be a starting point for other art.

Gareth, are you sure about that? It looks pretty grim to me!

Does it matter whether it is art or not? To me the only question would be is it an interesting subject to photograph or not? Personally - I would be no more interested in photographing graffiti than I would be in photographing paintings - which is not to say I can not admire paintings or graffiti.

Then again I happily photgraph sculpture - so perhaps I do not know what I am talking about and should shut up

I've started taking photos of graffiti I find amusing, but it's rare that I see much 'art' in graffiti. But then, if the art was intended to amuse...

I actually took one today, which may end up being entered into David's competition. In the meantime, here's one I took in January, which I thought was the work of an indecisive graffiti artist.




Dan

Sorry, to me it's always in the vandalism category unless the owner of the item which has been covered has given permission. It makes an area look rough and unkempt and simply attracts more damage.

Certain media elements trying to be trendy and chattering about Banksy does not help either - it just encourages any idiot with a spraycan to have a go!

Have a look through William Eggleston's Paris if you want inspiration on how to use street art/ graffiti. Available hardback from amazon for a reasonable price.

OK, it may be 'art' (pick your favourite definition) but I still find that graffiti is almost always banal, derivative and tiresome.

Does simply labelling something as 'art' automatically make anything acceptable and desirable?

We've been doing it for 30,000 years?

Damn chavvy cave folk.

I would have thought that being banal, derivative and tiresome practically qualifies it as Art, actually!

It's surprising though how intolerant we are of graffiti, whereas billboard advertising seems to be acceptable. My sister used to have a beautiful view of a 15ft tall diseased lung from her bedroom window, courtesy of a government health campaign. She was going through a spell of depression and I'm sure it didn't help!

Another vote for Banksy here. Some of his pictures are sheer genius. I'm not sure if they are 'art' but as thought-provoking political commentary I'd say they are most definitely not 'bullshit'.

In order to spend as little time as possible at the scene a lot of his stuff is spray painted through pre-cut stencils (which he makes himself), does that make it 'not art'?

One of my favourites:
[IMG]http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i305/Andoseroby/banksy.jpg[/IMG]

Poor David - he has offered a subject. One that is certainly photogenic. As such why not for a competition subject?

However in my book the examples of the genre put forward by some of the comments in this thread (as art), do not justify the overall downgrading effect it has on neighbourhoods, or travel experience.

I would happily see a law which ruled that anyone caught doing it in a destructive way should have their thumb and first finger chopped off – be difficult to hold and operate a spray can that way.

But it is with us – so let the competition idea stand. If only a record of social decay.

We enjoyed some cave graffiti on holiday in France this year.


True graffiti artists do not deface or tag another's work, which is why it is popular as an anti graffiti measure in some places.

I agree with Pentaxophile's comments above too.

Tim, I agree with your comments, and, as I said earlier, Banksy does inject genuine humour, as your example shows. However, I feel it is a one-shot, throw away style that is necessarily limited in its longevity.
It then may soon become tedious, like a one-line joke endlessly repeated on tv.