Last night a friend of mine shown me a few videos on graffiti art from the taggers perspective and it opened my eyes, not only the skill level involved but also the unwritten code and ethics of a true graffiti artist. I agree that it is vandalism if done on property that does not belong to you.  1 of England's well known artist/street artists as he is know. Isn't he nothing more a law breaking vandalising criminal?. But people say he is a street artist and pay thousands for his work.why? Because his work is thing that the every day person can relate to like people and animals so it is socially accepted.  But then you have the old school style of graffiti which is a usually one or two words words referring to a single persons name or the crew name o
F which a group of taggers call them self's,  just like a guild name or clan name in the gaming world. They are both done on other peoples property  which is illegal but the general thought about classic graffiti is that it should be removed and the people who have done it should be prosecuted. 

What do you think about graffiti if done properly do you this look good?  Would you call it art and are the people artist or criminals?

Oh man, graffiti. I have to say I love it, but I also hate it with a passion.

Graffiti artists, real ones, have created some of the finest pieces of art of the last few decades. People like Basquiat, John Fekner, and Banksy (though my opinions on the man himself aren't quite so positive). These guys have created not just impressive pieces of art, but powerful social statements with emotion, relevant to our time.

But then there are the blatant wannabees out there who just say "street art" as a label to attach to their meaningless vandalism in order to shoo away criticism. No examples are needed, just go to your nearest large city core and you'll see plenty.

Overall It's difficult to have a conclusive opinion on the matter. I'd say the good outweighs the bad but this medium is so.....difficult to decipher you just can't be sure.

Agreed

I think some graffiti looks really cool especially some of Banksy's work I see a lot of cool graffiti here in Detroit and Detroit is a good place to create graffiti art  

It is art in its own right. The main problem with graffiti is that it is done on someone else's property. That devalues the property,makes it unattractive,and the owner must pay for its removal. That being said,now if it is done on their own walls or property that is fine. If it is done on someone else's,it is vandalism.

P.S. I do like the tagging missions in The Warriors.

I think it can be really cool, but only if its in the right place, not randomly destroying some place that should be kept the way it was, and not if its too dark, other than that I'm ok with it and even like some of the ones that I see and am amazed at how some of these people cam do these things.

I would say some are art because most graffiti requires a lot of sxkill.

I'm split on this issue. On one hand, common taggers simply ruin the visual aspect of anothers piece of property with their, at best, wonderfully stylized tag. On the other hand, true artists that use the spraycan and stencil as their medium create brilliant works: sometimes political, others more personal and relatable to on a human level. To take a well-known figure as an example of an actual so-called "street artist": Banksy. His work ranges from the beautiful to the raw; commentaries on society like his Dismaland exhibit to the mural he made on the infamous wall in the Gaza Strip. Even his famous image a rat crowned king speach volumes of who holds true sway in the world. Of course, taggers from the poverty ridden industrial district that is the lower east-side are far common than those who make 'art' with their stencils and spraycans and so those liek Banksy are looked down upon for thier medium by the masses rather then their message.

All in all I gotta say that, while a small amount may be worth the cost of the paint, most of it deserves to removed from the building. That one overpass in Brazil, skate-parks, and even random buildings in the city show what street art can be if an artist makes it rather than a nothing stoner.

Chindogu : I agree

Chindogu : does anyone know if banksy has ever been charged for any of the illegal pictures he has don'e over the years? weather its a an unreadable word or a stencilled rat on a wall its is still criminal damage and should be treated in the same manor. The local councils who remove the graffiti are making the problem worse because if you paint over a tag to remove it all you are doing is giving the taggers a nice freshly painted canvas to do it again and again.

We have to differentiate between artists and thugs. I have seriously considered finding and paying a graffiti artist to paint my building with my brand when I eventually own my own business. That said, gang banging taggers defacing entire neighborhoods and "marking their turf" should be actively rooted out and prosecuted as serial vandals.

I think to ask about graffiti in general is too broad of a question.  Just like every form of art, there are examples of both good pieces and bad pieces.  One of my students used to do graffiti (might still do so, but I wouldn't know).  His artwork was absolutely brilliant, but I always couldn't help but wish he'd find a better use for it. Vandalizing property is vandalizing property, no matter how nice the art might be.

Wait, wait.  Are we talking graffiti or are we talking tagging?

Graffiti is when gangs or drug rings mark pieces of property to show their 'turf' to rival gangs.  It's a mark of violence, drug and weapon sales, and has zero positive impact on a neighborhood.

Tagging, where people put their marks on various buildings, bridges, or whatever, is just a way of saying, "Look at this!  I was here!  I'm daring and dangerous!"  It can be fun if those people are particularly artistic or able to draw fun pictures.  Usually they can't.

Street art, when people artistically paint a wall or a structure, is always welcome and is positive to a neighborhood.  I like that.

I think it is an artform just like anyone else. I'm kind of in a unique position since my city specifically has actually taken a lot of steps to give graffiti artists a chance to express themselves both compared to how it is globally and in my country. There are many areas where it's completely allowed here. Here's an example of a project where some graffiti artists were allowed by the city to use an entire apartment building as their canvas that's just a short walk from where I live, it's been a while so it's not as pretty anymore but it still exists and is pretty amazing:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a7/66/cc/a766cc29aace5180201f118d1181b74c.jpg

So I guess I would say I'm definietly for allowing it in some capacity, some of the things people have created doing it are amazing, and after a while people simply just spray over it, so it's essentially a piece of constantly changing decoration. I think doing that is a great middle ground. But I'm of course against those who just vandalize other people's property with their tags.

It depends on what type of graffiti you are referring to. I've seen some pieces on murals that are AMAZING and rival any form of modern artwork in my opinion. It really can be amazing what people can do with spraypaint and/or pens.

Like others in this thread have said, it all depends on the quality and purpose of the artwork. If it's a gang marking their turf, it's never a good thing no matter how well-made it is, but innocently-made art is harmless at worst, and can be great when done right. Graffiti can be artistic just like literally any other medium that allows creativity.

looba : To my knowledge Banksy has never been charged, let alone made his identity public. Unless someone leaks his identity, where and when he's going to install street art then it's unlikely he's going to be charged as Banksy. I have no doubt in my mind that the man has been charged with vandalism a few times in his life but the persona has never been.

And yea, it's a viscous cycle. Removing the graffiti creates a clean canvas for others to fill again.

I think graffiti can sometimes be done with the best of intentions.  An example is the "You are beautiful" graffiti in Birmingham, Alabama.  One instance of it on the highway hasn't been removed or covered up for years.  I feel that it is perhaps for the best that it hasn't been removed.  While what was done was illegal, it certainly wasn't tasteless.  It serves as something to inspire people.

Ghostbear1111 : graffiti is what has been done, tagging is what people do.

Where I live the only graffiti I see is on trains and I must say most of them just look horrible like they were trying to write a name but really scribbly like. Some of them though looked pretty good like they actually tried to do something that looks great and then a couple trains over you see the horrible ones so it just ruins the look of others because of the surrounding ones.

But in my opinion since those are the only ones I ever see I think it is pretty bad since it isn't their property which has been mentioned a lot but that is the only real life cases I see.