Before you vote in the poll, please read this.
Is art a crime?
First of all, I'd like to make a few distinctions.

Number One:
There is a difference between graffiti and gang graffiti.

Number Two:
I have no respect for graffiti writers that feel vandalism and destruction are fun. Or, those that find fun in destroying rather than the art.

Number Three: (The Spiel)
Now I know many people think "painting a wall without permission is illegal and it really should be"
But I find no greater joy than walking down the street and seeing a poster, sticker, or painted wall to kill the monotony. As long as there is no gang affiliation in the painting, I don't think it's wrong. This is just my opinion, and I would like to know everyone else's.

EDIT:
I forgot to mention this earlier...
Most writers, the good ones at least, have a sort of "code of ethics" if you will. (i.e. no painting on private property, houses, cars, places of worship, that kind of thing.)

This post has been edited by takotsu: Mar 27 2008, 08:25 PM

I suppose it wouldn't be so bad if I saw a very well done piece of art on a public place like a freeway sound barrier, or a subway, but I do not want any graffiti on my fence, no matter how artistic it is. Private property should be just that, private. Public is public property, owned by the city so it technically isn't as bad as private but the kids who go around doing this kind of stuff don't distinguish between these two. Their only goal is for their art to be seen by as many people as possible, weather it be on a city street, or on a fence on my back yard.

I voted no, but I think you should of had 3 choises, yes, no, and maybe! I think it depends on the situation. I will admit, I sometimes enjoy watching trains going down the tracks that have well painted up cars. Some of the "artwork" shows a great deal of talent. However, seeing stupid stuff like "Bobbie Loves Mary" painted on a rock in a public park is quite annoying. I suppose it would be hard though, to draw a line between good quality graffiti and vandalisim.

I think Graffiti is definitely art. If you've ever seen some of Banksy's work you'd probably agree. He's a very well respected Graffiti artist. I'd suggest googling Banksy and checking out his work, it's pretty cool.

There are some excellent artists out there who make brilliant pieces of art which could be classified as graffiti. The problem is that they are damaging other peoples' property. Whether the art is good or not, I know I'd be annoyed to find someone had drawn all over my house/shop/office! In the UK a lot of the city councils are willing to accept pieces of art to display around the city, and there is no reason why graffiti artists couldn't do their work on a board and then have that displayed around the city. There are also walls built especially for people to graffiti, and that is a good idea. You see some interesting art without any damage.

There is also the problem of taste. You may like the look of graffiti and graffiti-style art, but I reckon you could find plenty of people who don't. If graffiti were legalised you would upset a great number of people who just wouldn't want to see it where they live.

i dont think art is a crime but doing something to someone else's belonging(whether it's ugly or beutifull) is not righ and should be illegal. there's nothing wrong with the grafity style, i think it's nice and does in fact looks good, but it's always a couple bad fruits that ruin the whole basket. yes vandalism should be illegal but theres no need to "out law" the graffiti style i thing that's realy stupid

I do not have anything against a nice piece of graffiti... For me it all depends on that part. But I hate when they "spray it all over the place", in places they are not allowed to! God, some of them are just ruining the city! But here we have got some places, public places, where they are allowed to go wild as much as they want to.

If it should be legal or not, I have to say not. If it was legal, people would start to spray that stuff everywhere! rvalkass wrote it in a good way; "There is also the problem of taste. You may like the look of graffiti and graffiti-style art, but I reckon you could find plenty of people who don't." ...and that is one of the reasons I think it is a good thing to give them some walls, some places where they can perform this art. Because it is art. And some art is nicer than other...

Yes it should be. Now I love art, and I draw and paint myself, but I believe there is always a right place and right time to do things.

If graffiti artists want people to respect their art, they must first learn to respect people's property. They may be proud of their art, but not everybody would like their work enough to want it on their possessions, and without seeking their permission too. Furthermore, not all buildings or construction works can accommodate artistic graffiti. Examples are commercial buildings, religious buildings and cemeteries.

If graffiti artists wish to do their art in public, they should do it in places that are put aside for them (in my country, there is a place where graffiti artists are allowed to paint to their hearts' content), obtain permission from the authorities or the owner of the building/wall they are doing their art on, or rent a wall to paint on. But there should definitely be a penalty for artists who don't obey these, otherwise, people will spray wherever they want to.