The jailing of two teenage 'graffiti artists' for 15 and 12 months in Manchester has hit the headlines this week.
The pair caused around £13,000 worth of damage on a graffiti spree that saw them target a number of rail stations across the North West but whilst the jail sentences handed to the pair have been condemned, the issue has also re-opened a debate on the issue of this so-called 'urban art'.
On the one hand, you have those who claim that graffiti is a unique brand of art which typifies urban, inner-city life. Many of the underground walkways in Bradford City Centre used to feature this form of art in an attempt to make the subway system more appealing. Graffiti was often used to make political statements, particularly in Northern Ireland, promote under-represented subcultures and in the US, many of the world's leading brands utilise graffiti art as a form of advertising.
But on the other side of the coin, you have those who say that graffiti is nothing more than another form of vandalism, petty crime and yet another symbol of urban decay and inner-city squaller.
Most politicians, it must be said, seem to side with the latter argument and understandably so. Most graffiti isn't art at all and there's no way that the words "Daz woz 'ere" scrawled on a bus shelter would get nothing more than a derisory look from any right-minded individual.
But then take someone like "Banksy" and some of his work, which is undoubtedly impressive:
Of course, the sentences handed out to these two lads has also been questioned. Without trying to turn this into a "why give these kids 15 months when people who
You have to question to what degree these youngsters are a danger to society and you'd also have to question what a custodial sentence will achieve which a community service wouldn't have achieved? The elder of the pair will now miss his first year of university and a year of trying to better himself to be able to contribute back to society. Instead, he's at even greater danger of turning to a life of petty crime.
Manchester, like many major cities in the UK has it's share of problems, but should clamping down on over expressive 'art' really be the priority?
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Is Graffiti "Art"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You see, I quite like all of those grafitti examples in your post, even the one with chinese characters all over the concrete post - if I was able to read chinese then maybe I wouldn't like it so much, but it just looks nice and better than a bare concrete post.
If any of the twats who spray paint stuff around here had any artistic talent then I may applaud them, failing that then jail is too good for them.
Within both societies, mainstream and the subculture, graffiti being art or vandalism depends on two factors. Within mainstream society, graffiti art or graffiti vandalism is determined by the factor of "permission." However, within the graffiti culture graffiti art or graffiti vandalism is determined by one's selection of generating their distinct graffiti formats. Graffiti writers or vandals generate distinct graffiti formats (tags, tags and territorial acronyms,simple or common throw-ups). These are graffiti formats associated with graffiti vandalism. They know this forsure and accept their fate when apprehened. Graffiti artists or street artists generate distinct graffiti formats (complex throw-ups, pieces or murals). These are graffiti formats associated with creative art. They attempt to find isolated location or permission walls. The confusion lies when graffiti formats associated with creative arts are displayed on surfaces without permission.
Don't be fooled, permission rules. Unless under extreme conditions (storms and war). One value should not be at another's worth.
Grafcop
Post a Comment