Can graffiti be considered art?

Yes
No
Resources for this issue
Reviews of this issue

This issue has been approved by whereIstand editors.

Do not use this page to take a stand on this issue.

This page shows the dialogue between users and editors regarding the merits of this issue. If you have comments about the issue's wording, relevance, etc., write them here. Only registered whereIstand members can edit an issue. Users must register in order to participate in all aspects of the whereIstand community.

8/23/2005 10:47:02 AM

Gab - looks #1937##like you# and I (and Michael Bloomberg and the courts and probably a few thousand graffiti artists) are the only people interested in this matter.

Pity.  I'd hoped to debate the implications of the First Amendment in a context other than religion - one that makes sense to me.  The old question, "What is art" admits to a great body of philosophic disagreement - and also leads to some ugly eyesores (as well as glorious achievements).

Plus, this seems to be a topic where we could all post pictures of our favorite (or least favorite) graffiti, and discuss it.  That seems to me to be an ideal application of the 'image upload' tool.  HEY NICK....

8/22/2005 11:17:50 PM

I like the question. Today's Metro or amNew York had an article about graffiti being considered art. I say put it up.

8/19/2005 1:23:15 PM

Since there hasn't been a whole lot of discussion of this matter, I thought I'd throw this one out there, particularly given the recent decision by NY to ban a promotional party for the video game, "Getting Up," where players spray graffiti on various buildings.

This is an intriguing notion to me.  We authorize video games where players rape, maul, and slaughter - but not video games where they engage in graffiti.  Somehow, the two don't appear to be comparable vices - but I'll go into that in the debate itself.

To start it off though, the question seems fair: is there ever any virtue to graffiti itself?