Can all of the graffiti be considered as art? No exceptions!
One of the purproses of art is expression. It doesn’t have any borders, thus, implying it is totally free.
You feel totally different, when you are looking at the painting in the gallery and graffiti on the street. Why is that?
In my opininon, graffiti gives off a “wild vibe”.
I feel like just standing near the graffiti makes you look cool.
Look at me mum, I’m the rebel!
It is a form of beauty, which states:
“I’m not the type, who wants to be captured in a golden frame on the wall of the pretentious galleries”. Let’s face it, what kind of people do you imagine, when you think of the art gallery? Is it a man with a cap and scarf around his neck, holding a glass of wine? Well, certainly, it is a stereotype, but still leads you to an important conclusion. To visit a gallery, you need purpose, money, and a special time in your schedule.
And graffiti requires none of that. You can see it anytime, it is unexpected and can catch you off guard.
For example, when you walking down the street, and suddenly, a pair of the saddest animal eyes flashes right in front of you.
This photo does not belong to me, but this graffiti was in Kaliningrad for quite a while. Sadly, it does not exist anymore because it was slowly and painfully removed.
Later, when I was walking in the park, I saw this unespected trio. This time, I took a picture.
Salvador Dali, skull and a lady in sunglasses. Hm, not sure if I can fully grasp the idea.
But still, can you say for sure, that every graffiti can be called “art”? Can we cross the line, like: “Wow, this drawing is so well executed and contains a powerful message. Everybody, it’s art!"
I also took pictures of these pieces, related to bicycle. They are simple, and yet, there is something touching about them for me.
They are not so skillful like the one with Salvador Dali in it, but it still speaks to me more.
Even this guy’s face speaks to me on so many levels. I can see the eternal sadness in his eyes.
And my collection of these kind of photos just goes on and on.
The question still stays open. Will you consider a certain graffiti art, because it makes you feel something and dismiss the other one, because it just looks like the silly drawing of a child?
In my opinion, everything is still up to an individual perception. We dig for the special meaning when we want to, and with that power, we can make every single line breathe.
But everyday, every creation receives not only admiration, but indifferent glances too.
Art is short for Artificial. Anything that is intentionally made, i.e. not existing in nature. i.e. artificial, can be considered art by eye of the beholder. So yes, all graffiti can be considered art. This does not preclude it from also being vandalism as dwinblood mentioned.
Thank you for your comment! Yes, etymologically you are correct. This way, I think I pointed at the perception more. No matter what kind of art it is - good or bad, it's still remains art.
Good stuff. I think you could consider all graffiti art... that doesn't mean all graffiti is good art.... the same as anyone attempting to control sound could be considered music... that doesn't mean it is good music.
However, it can still be art, and still be vandalism at the same time if it defaced property belonging to someone else.
It can still look incredible doing such.
I'm not a fan of gang tagging.
Thank you for your answer! It is a good point about vandalism. As I mentioned, graffiti is more free, but its freedom ends, when it disturbs someone else's freedom.