Does Anyone See This As Art?

[Jägerstaffel]

I'd be pissed if someone used my property as a canvas for their art; creative or not.

[Birka]

Very interseting, but not "art". I would be very angry if my taxes were used to pay this guy for this.

[Psychonaut]

If they don't own the property, the art/mural or whatever you want to call it, is painted on, it is vandalism. Some gangs in Southern California use this kind of "art" to mark their territories.

If it is sanction by the owners or proper authorities it could be called art - but that doesn't necessary mean it is all in good taste.

Graffiti is a huge problem here as well. You can hardly drive anywhere outside of the tourist areas without seeing both private and public property that has been illegally defaced by local "artists." I think there's certainly a place for public outdoor art, but what I see when I drive through town is as much art as rap music is.

[woody]

I'm going to throw in my 2 cents. If it was done on someone's own property, canvas, wall, or the person was commissioned/hired/paid to to it on that person's wall, it's art. Art doesn't really have to "say" anything.

If someone paints/draws on property that belongs to someone else and permission was NOT given, it is graffiti, therefore, vandalism.

You treat it just like sex. Sex feels great. But, if a woman doesn't give a man permission, then it is rape (vandalism). If the woman gives permission, it is consensual (art). Of course, the damage done differs greatly between rape and vandalism, but I'm just comparing rape and consensual sex to vandalism and art. Permission vs no permission.

If I caught someone putting "art" on my wall, I would create "art" with their brain with a gun. But, that's just me. Though, I just saw where some cracker-ass thug is making bank because his graffiti got noticed and he's making "art" for people now. Of course, he's not very original. Most of his "art" is a character that was the creation of someone else (smurfs, mickey mouse, ect) and big cauliflower ears thrown on and "X"s instead of the eyes. For a project or two, I could see that as "art". But, when you just continue to do that same trick for everything, it because stale. They all look the same...just my 2 cents, again.

[Brännvin]

Well I see both.

Even though most graffiti is horrible looking, like almost anything today it is considered a art. Though this discussion is a little confusing because anything can be art and vandalism no matter how good or bad it looks.

Personally I dislike graffiti, which I find something related to visual pollution, criminality and urban decay. I can not speak for other places, however in Malmö, Helsingborg and Copenhagen that is visibly noticeable in day to day.

[Útrám]

Well made graffiti is fine with me, as long as there is not too much of it.

[Atlas]

Art for me aswell, especially the first picture, very well done.
I'm so used of the ugly graffitis we have here on the trains, on old manufactories etc... that when I see something beautiful like this, I can consider it art.

Those who paint trucks, homes or even cars, are total asshole. People work for this.

[Tabiti]

Personally, I don't like graffiti, especially those ugly inscriptions on walls. Yes, there are some graffiti people with talents and their works can be considered art.
The most I dislike about graffiti is the culture and views of their artists. Here they are mostly those wiggers, marijuana lovers, Bob Marley fans and so on. Almost no people with my ideas to do graffiti, instead some scratching of "Holocaust is a Zionist lie", "Kill the gypsies" and so on slogans...Also quite ugly and stupid...

[Äike]

That is art, unlike 99% of graffiti.

In Estonia, most of the graffiti is done by Russians. It looks like this: "Dima was here" "Masha was here" "Vladimir was here" etc. That's not art, that's pure vandalism.

Only very few graffiti artists know how to make real art.

[Eldritch]

If he does this without permission it's not art -- it's vandalism. I'm not denying that this guy has talent, because judging from those pictures he does, but he needs to find a more constructive way to fulfill his potential.