“Graffiti is not art…
Graffiti is not just an isolated nuisance but linked to other forms of enviro-crime that demean and spoil our streets, town centres and open spaces. Graffiti is a costly and annoying expression of anti-social behavior that can undermine our sense of well-being, making us feel uncomfortable in our own neighbourhoods…
Graffiti can be defined as any informal or illegal marks, drawings or paintings that have been deliberately made by a person or persons on any physical structure in the outdoor environment, usually with a view to communicating some message or symbol, etc. to others. The terms ‘graffiti’ and ‘sign’ are used interchangeably in the Code of Practice…
A ‘graffiti removal notice’ is served on the occupier, or, if there appears, through reasonable enquiry, to be no occupied, it is fixed to the surface of the offending premises, apparatus or plant. The notice requires the occupier (or alternatively, the occupier or owner where a notice is affixed) to remove or obliterate the sign within a period specified in the notice…If this is not done within the specified time the council has the power to remove or obliterate the sign themselves and recover the reasonable costs of doing so…
References to ‘owners and occupiers’ in this CoP refers to those persons who legally own or occupy premises, apparatus or plant, and includes undertakers and statutory undertakers…
‘Offensive’ applies where graffiti is racially offensive, sexually offensive, homophobic, depicts a sexual or violent act or is defamatory…”
Code of Practice for Graffiti RemovalCode of Practice for exercising the powers set out in Sections 12 and 13 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995 (as amended) Published by the Association of London Government, Transport and Environment Committee
21 July 2005
Photo above, Banksy. For more see http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/horizontal_1.htm
reverend 1:01 pm on October 19, 2007 Permalink
For a second there I thought they were talking about developments like Central park and the rest of the Box store nightmares. I can’t think any worse local “enviro-crime” than the irresponsible development that takes place at an insane rate all over this country. Scarring our landscape with the with an “anti-social” built environment that drives people into to the isolation chambers of their vehicles and homes. I can’t think of any enviro-terrorism more detrimental to the well-being of a culture.
I enjoy Robert Crumb’s “A Short History of America” that drives this point home quite nicely. You can see it on YouTube here.
Another recent trend has me fascinated is the projection graffiti, you can see it in action here. http://graffitiresearchlab.com/
Shannon 1:41 pm on October 19, 2007 Permalink
To say that graffiti is not art is a very strong statement. Makes me wonder about the kind of person who wrote the article. Is their only experience with art come from viewing it in a fancy gallery?
As with many problems in society people tend to look at the symptoms rather than the disease. Why does graffiti show up in poor neighborhoods where the crime rate is higher? Maybe because graffiti is cheaper than most forms of art?
I view this similarly to the way people have a problem with rap and hiphop. Most people don’t like rap because of a lot mainstream stuff tends to be shallow and offensive. But just because the offensive music gets the attention doesn’t mean there aren’t great artists that are making inspiring and brilliant music and it definitely exists. Not all graffiti is great, but to say it isn’t art says that a culture of people have no expression value.
SF 2:28 pm on October 19, 2007 Permalink
Or does labeling graffiti as “art” defuse it of meaning? Another voice to add to the mix, this one from “AK-47″ (Zhang Dali) in the People’s Republic of China:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/12/07/beijing.qa/
Cheers,
S. Fernsebner
Hist. and Am. Studies / UMW
Brodie 9:34 pm on October 23, 2007 Permalink
being a graffiti writer myself i am SLIGHTLY biased. i personally think that anyone who says that graffiti is not art is ignorant, close minded, and irrational. though,knowing that this reading comes from the policy of brittish graffiti removal, i am really not suprised to hear all this.
i am also not suprised to see all of this simply because the brittish govt. has been defeated SO many times by influential artists such as banksy and borf.
Oberon 3:51 pm on September 11, 2008 Permalink
…..graffiti art is like porn, i know it when i see it…….art is always dangerous, no matter the medium.
Kyle K. 10:54 am on March 10, 2009 Permalink
Shannon
Oct 19th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
To say that graffiti is not art is a very strong statement. Makes me wonder about the kind of person who wrote the article. Is their only experience with art come from viewing it in a fancy gallery?
As with many problems in society people tend to look at the symptoms rather than the disease. Why does graffiti show up in poor neighborhoods where the crime rate is higher? Maybe because graffiti is cheaper than most forms of art?
I view this similarly to the way people have a problem with rap and hiphop. Most people don’t like rap because of a lot mainstream stuff tends to be shallow and offensive. But just because the offensive music gets the attention doesn’t mean there aren’t great artists that are making inspiring and brilliant music and it definitely exists. Not all graffiti is great, but to say it isn’t art says that a culture of people have no expression value.
Wow! people dont like graffiti because it destroys their personal property. Some people have property that actually has some value to them and they dont want it marked up with scribbles that looks like something a 5 year old can do. And people dont like rap because every other word is “i raped my girlfriend”"slap a hoe”
JUNEBU6 10:29 pm on August 5, 2009 Permalink
How is grafitti NOT art? so someone can paint a BEAUTIFUL painting on an oil canvas, but the second that same artist transfers the SAME PAINTING onto a building using spray paint or oil based paints it’s instantly “not art”? sure it’s illegal but it’s still art.