What Is Your Personal View On ‘Street Art’?

[Intellectual]

Some people feel that graffiti or ‘street art’ is a valid form of artistic expression. They believe that ‘street art’ merits the same respect as traditional forms of art such as sculpture, canvas painting, or drawing. On the other hand, others feel that graffiti or ‘street art’ is a form of vandalism and defaces a community. They feel that those who paint graffiti should be arrested and forced to pay for the damage.

What do you think about this?

Thank you very much.

[jackthehat]

I agree with both views.

Context and location are very important.

[China Doll]

It depends on the graffiti in question. Signing your 'tag' name over a railway bridge is not exactly art.

[jno]

I'm against it. It involves people taking over public spaces for their private gratification. That's inherently intimidating. This is regardless of artistic merit.

[Old_Geezer]

Temporary chalk drawing by those who have obtained permission is fine. Permanent spray paint stuff done without permission is an eyesore and should be removed and the culprit arrested for vandalism.

Folk who feel they have a valid form of artistic expression can express themselves on their own canvas they bought.

[chrisgel]

As in all art there is good and bad. I think that bad street art is graffiti and does annoy people. On the other hand I have seen some truly remarkable works that wouldn't look out of place in a gallery.
I particularly like the 3D type that can be seen on youtube and other sites.

[Sharingan]

Depends on the graffiti. Something planned, beautiful and non threatening is something which should enhance the community for everyone. Scrawling ' Stacey is a sl ag' is probably not going to win anyone the Turner. The exception to this are the political murals in Northern Ireland which were designed to be intimidating and provocative but I think ought to be maintained because of their historic importance.

[society]

In my opinion, Graffiti or street art as it's known to some is disgraceful to any building or neighbourhood. It depreciate the properties values and it's 'loud' and ugly. I never find them to be attractive or helpful. It's just defacing a building, that's what I see.

[jno]

I've got nothing against chalk work, which is temporary, but I don't suppose that's what the OP is meaning.

[ummmm]

Banksy has done well out of it.

[grasscarp]

I liked the graffiti that used to be written on a bridge in London which said Jesus Saves. Someone had added undernearth "With the Woolwich"

[jno]

or "but Moses scores on the rebound".

[Jubz]

The persons should be made to pay for the damage and scrub it off. Irrespective whether the art is good or a scrawl it is still defacing something that doesn't belong to them.
If permission is sort and then granted, then yes occasionally a well drawn street art can enhance an area.
I do think those 3D chalk drawings are amazing.

[Booldawg]

I was into it as a kid, back in the mid 80s when in was really in its infancy in the UK. There's a piece I did in 1988 that still exists.

As a responsible and boring adult I have mixed feelings about it. Its all contextual. Depends how good the work is, where it is etc etc.

[Clanad]

This... is most assuredly art:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Three+dimensional+street+art&;rlz=1R2ADFA_enUS375&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&;sa=X&ei=wr2BUbbRKpD_rAHOyYHoDw&ved=0CC0QsAQ&;biw=1521&bih=797#imgrc=ZqF8UzE0rvmEPM%3A%3BI-y2rcJJV88BxM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcdn0.lostateminor.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2009%252F04%252F3d-artwork.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.lostateminor.com%252F2009%252F04%252F06%252Fedgar-mullers-three-dimensional-street-art%252F%3B480%3B320

[jno]

I would class that with magic rather than art, Clanad, performing illusions in the street. (That's not a criticism, just a categorisation.)

[ludwig]

I don't mind graffiti artists doing their thing as long as they're ok with me painting stuff on their houses unannounced.

I think about 98% of it looks crap. I do like some of the Banksys though.

[brandyrose]

I call it death row art. I do like to see it - I think if you dont see it its more worrying; its like there is too much oppression or fear around. Teenagers are abit too tame and safe sometimes and I'd prefer to see them having crazy hair and experimenting. Its abit like rats...we know they are there but something wouldn't be right if we never saw them again. Its about survival and this kind of survival is not hidden. I'm for expression even if I only enjoy very few works. There is a really big one of a purple bulldog playing records ! in Manchester city centre and it covers the steel shutters of a cafe....its been there for years and I appreciate it. I accept it must be awkward if its your wall or train! but you could look on that as a bit of a privilege and leave it up for the fun of it. You have something to talk about and they didn't ignore you ....you had a sick wall! Life is too short. I've seen some great stuff in Brussells opposite the police station! and I just love the whole cat and mouse affair of creating it without getting arrested. I love the social politics aspect. In Northern Ireland - some are very funny if you have time to interrogate them! and well sometimes they were good to have on the side of a building if you didn't want your building to get blown up. Salford had some great ones - very garish - for the Queens celebrations and got national coverage. I was delighted for Salford (I'm not saying they "had to" do something but it said alot). They have a sense of humour there. Not all of it is good and I accept this. Seemingly its abit easier with the recession as the Gov hasn't got the cash to clean up some graffiti or street art and it has had abit more longevity. I love that.
No I dont see them as criminals but if they get caught I'd negotiate some deal with whoever owns the wall or whatever.. I dont think they would get permission to draw or paint if the asked so I agree its best to just do it and take whatever rap but I think they add something.


I like to see how people express themselves visually.