Before talking about this topic in class, I sincerely didn’t think about graffiti, their meaning, their history, their creators or even their controversies. Starting from this consideration, I can assume I take for granted a lot of things I am surrounded by, small or big, simple or complex. I personally think graffiti belongs to the “small” category because is something a lot of times hidden, partially considered not good and mostly ignored but at the same it fits in the “complex” type because of its way to reveal the necessity of being heard, being seen and being noticed, its way of debating social issues and spreading a message through some colour, some shades and some simple spray bottles. Why should we say graffiti is not art when at the end of the day is source of freedom for those who do it and a possible source of inspiration for those who see it? In my opinion it is art, at least when it comes to what I just said but I know for sure, as all of us should, that I have not the right to decide what’s good or bad for the others, as Beatrice said: “Why should I impose my view of the world to the others?” I am to be honest relieved by the fact that we all have different opinions because everything would be so boring if we all agreed about something. (Even if sometimes it would be fantastic to get to the “meeting point” in a matter of seconds.) Anyway, I conclude saying art is subjective, art for someone can be something that for someone else is absolutely meaningless. Maybe we are seeing it from the wrong point of view.. What if we can’t choose what art is and instead art is the one chooses and strikes us? ;)
I get why so many people find graffiti unpleasant. Still, they're art, at least for the originator. Anything could be art. It's a point of view.
The thing I love the most about graffiti is the way they depict freedom and wild spirit, the way they give youth the chance to let go of their impulses. But above all, the way vandalism turns into beauty the exact moment my eyes see this work of pure art.
In my opinion, people tend to focus only on the negative sides of this art. Graffiti, if properly exploited, can be something fresh, innovative, artistic and at the same time cheerful and colourful. Many cities today would need this kind of art. Local leaders should reach compromises with street artists for a common purpose, to improve the cities we live in. So this wonderful art could become something that everyone would appreciate. Large paintings on city walls, which depict all kinds of positive vibrations. About bad taste graffiti, they should be removed, as we have always done. Laws can be changed, but always towards improvement.
I totally agree with Luana, Giorgia, Alessandra and Beatrice. Graffiti are generally art but not at all. In the definition of art we can read "expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. It expresses strong beauty or emotional power I saw different videos where people said graffiti bring them joy, cities and public areas would be boring without the bright colors and imagination spread across the walls. For me graffiti are EMOTION and ADRENALINE. Art is an expression. Graffiti could show so much of a person. They are not aggressive, I mean not always. Sometimes they could become vandalism. In the definition of graffiti we can read the word "ILLICITLY", yes... "writing and drawing scribbled, scratched or sprayed ILLICITLY on a wall or other surface in a public place. They could be considered a formal of when they become an appropriation of public space or somebody's private property without permission,and nobody has the right to do. Then there are some graffiti works which are just trash because there is no reason or no purpose to write your own name in big letters on a private wall. Last but not least some graffiti have a rude and adversarial and they could be dangerous for the society because of the violence.
I would like to finish saying that I agree with Giorgia, we have to consider every kind of graffiti independently from our certainties.
I agree with Giorgia and Luana on treating graffiti differently: some belong to street art and some others belong to vandalism. I have always thought that we shouldn't judge art, but I have also always believed that one person's freedom ends where another's begin. Therefore, why should I impose my vision of the world to the others? I have contrasting opinions on this topic: on one hand, I think that just because graffiti are illegal, it doesn't mean they are not art. On the other hand, I do believe that it's not proper to judge graffiti and assess them as "art" or "vandalism" basing yourself on their "look". Tastes are something personal so "it's wonderful" or "awful!" souldn't be an assessment criterion.
I appreciate a lot graffiti such as the ones of Bansky, because behind them there’s a lot of hard work and passion.
Who inspires us with his work is an ARTIST, but who scratches bad statements or soils just for fun is not worthy of the name!
Anyway it’s not legal to leave a trail in public spaces without permission... the law is the law! ????
I agree with Luana, intact I really like some graffiti and also the concept of street art, even as a form of rebellion and a political and social denunciation, that's why I believe sometimes they are right not to ask for the permission of spraying on public walls. On the other hand not all the graffiti are a form of self expression and art, intact some are just illicit acts made with the mere purpose of doing something exciting out of the law. So we should start fixing the boundary between those two different type of graffiti, and treat them differently.
I think that Graffiti are generally art, but not at all. I mean, when you see beautiful pictures on the walls, with awesome details, would you not call them "art"? I would. But sometimes they are just scribbles and words without meaning. That's vandalism. I think that art is something that comes from the heart of everyone. So it must have a purpose. But some Graffiti are "free made", without "feeling". I want to clarify that it doesn't mean "Graffiti as a whole" don't deserved to be considered an art, but the ones that are just "nosense pictures"... surely they are not to be described as such.