When is vandalism art, and art vandalism?

[andy-hughes]

Jo Orton and Kenneth Halliwell served six months in prison for the crime of defacing library books. It seems inconceivable that anyone would serve a sentence for a crim like this in our modern times. But the point is - in our modern times, the complete collection of books the two defaced are now proudly held as artisic exhibits by the Islington Library. So, at what point do two young men switch from being nasty time-wasting vandals who got what they deserved, into iconic artists whose 'hobby' is now seen as art - separate to Orton's output as a writer?

Fast forward to graffiti artist (?) Banksy - vandal or visionary?

Your thoughts?

[jno]

I don't think it happened until after their deaths. It's probably the same sort of question as 'when do current events become history?'

As far as I am concerned, graffiti involves people taking over public spaces for their own private uses. They can do what they want in their own homes, on bricks, canvas, paper or whatever. But doing it on community property is theft, and I'd happily see them all forced to remove their works.

[johnny7]

Art is something that confuses me. For instance, I went to my local art gallery several times with my art class when I was at school and saw several paintings which I thought could have been painted by any 5 year old but were still held as being artistic. Back to the your thread, vanadalism is something I do not condone and therefore confused at why what these 2 guys had done would be perceived as artisitic. I don't know the whole story but I'm guessing some well known figure in the art industry said it was artistic and everyone else seemed to agree.

[sn�gged]

''Suppose that Leonardo, Monet, Picasso, or any of the recognized artisans of Western European culture were alive in the present day. Then, suppose that one of these famous artists decided to paint a masterpiece on the side of your house or on your front door or on a wall in your neighborhood. Would Picasso or Monet's markings be 'graffiti' or 'art' or 'vandalism' or 'graffiti art'?

The answer may vary across people, but I would claim that those markings are art in the form of graffiti. Their markings would qualify as vandalism only if they appeared on private or public property without permission''

[swedeheart]

Agree with jno.

Nothing to do with graffiti but on a related matter this is what we're discussing over here right now.

[raysparx1]

Jo Orton was very clever, the real working class lad that made good, as was said, The Oscar Wilde of the welfare state. some graffiti is very artistic, and some real talent shines through, sadly a lot of so called art, is more like really bad graffiti