As in any argument, I know that there are great and valid points to each side. But what side wins? I have grown up to view graffiti as part of the ghetto; part of something bad, dangerous and most certainly part of something that was distant from my life. However, as I have grown up and really became aware of graffiti and what it entails, I begun looking at it as a form of art. Of course, there are pieces that have no artistic value and are just on the walls without purpose. Graffiti has also been linked to increased gang/criminal activity because of the lack of respect to the environment. So this makes me wonder… should we limit graffiti artists to certain areas, like the Venice Art Walls?
Does the location of the graffiti impact the artistic value? Or is it purely based on the content? Some would say the both, content and location.
Another artist that I have come across is an Italian artist named Blu. In this video, pedestrians are heard talking about his work in progress and accurately reflects all types of reactions heard all around the world. [His website includes a lot of his work so that you can check them out. http://www.blublu.org/index.htm ]
So I’m asking here, what does a piece have to have so it could be considered art instead of vandalism? In essence both “kinds” have the same aspects to it: 1. an individual, 2. paint, 3. wall. What do you think?