In what way is Graffiti any different than shitting on somebodies porch and calling it art, or burning down somebodies house and calling it art?
It's not different. It's just being a dick and using art as an excuse.
Just because something is dickish doesn't make it not art. A painting is a painting. The difference between the Sistine Chapel and graffiti is the church payed Mikey to put that on their ceiling.
But I don't think you're questioning whether it's art, just saying that people use that term to hide behind doing something that is inherently wrong. And again, it comes down to perspective. I hope you realize I'm playing Devil's Advocate a little bit and don't really have a dog in this fight. But a lot of graffiti artists fundamentally see the world differently than you do. You ask how you'd feel if someone spray painted a goofy thing on the building that you own. Well I think they would answer, "Pretty fucking awesome, because I own a God-damned building."
I'm not saying Graffiti isn't art. I'm of the opinion that the term "art" is entirely subjective and literally anything can be considered art if you think hard enough about it.
My point is that Graffiti is morally wrong and anybody who does it without consent of the person whose property they are drawing on is an asshole. People who use Graffiti art style on sanctioned walls are not making graffiti, they're making murals. Which is different, because it's not illegal and amoral (note: I am not implying that something being illegal makes it amoral of vice versa)
Originally Posted by SarezJay
A brilliantly rude, deliriously insane closeted sexual politics on steroids mockumentary. Boasting "Clokc in teh Miror" as the anointed White Obama, waxed rectums, defense moves against multi-hued dildos, and Ron Paul as peeved object of erotic desire.