args

Graffiti is art

This debate is quite exciting. I apologize for the amount of time it took me to respond. Rebuttals: "I. It is humiliation because its their property, and its their opinion on how they want the place to look. If they want it to look "artistic" they would do it or have someone do it. But they dont want "art" on their property. Therefore, it is humiliation." First of all, graffiti is not only on walls, or other peoples property, but also on paper. Because of such, according to the definition we have established, graffiti is a form of art. To continue, though it may be "humiliating" it is still art. Graffiti is illegal, and some people think it is wrong, or humiliating, but how does this take away what it is? Art is seen in everything, including graffiti. Just because it may be seen as humiliating, it is still an art. Anyway. some people do not think graffiti is humiliation, including me. So not in all cases graffiti is humiliation, but it is art in all cases, no matter how you see it. "II. Ok if you ask me, I think that ruining from neighborhoods to blocks, to every single property they dont own is worse than killing thousands and saving millions to make the world a better place." How on earth does killing thousands of people, destroying millions of cities, and ruining families better than having a few marks in a city that can easily be removed? Tell me how? This is obviously incorrect, even though it is your opinions, it is a terrible one. War is much worst than graffiti. "In your opinion, destruction is art. But in the opinion who has "art" on their property, its destruction. They DONT want art on their property. Therefore, it is not art, its destructing someone's land." Though they might not see it art, it is art. It is not my opinion, but the opinion of art itself. Anything is art, and graffiti is one to. Why do you think it's called "graffiti art"? It literally has the word art in it! "V. You can consider it art, but some people wont consider it art. Like I said before, they would consider it... a not-good thing." But this is their incorrect opinions. According to our definition, graffiti is art. You can consider it otherwise, but in the end it will always be art. It's like how people think war is a good thing, but no matter what it will always be killing, and destroying. "Going against the law is not something good." Going against the law can be good. It all depends on how you understand the world. If a law is terrible, it is good to go against it. " If you really want to be so artistic, just do graffiti on a canvas or your own property. " People do do graffiti on a canvas. And people do it in public for everyone to see, a place where their art has to be seen, you can't ignore it very easily. Arguments: Art is as we have already discussed, any way to express yourself creatively. Graffiti requires such, therefore an art. Graffiti requires expression as I have already mentioned. Here is a text I found in order to elaborate, "Graffiti is a form of expression, and artists should be free to make their thoughts and beliefs public. Serving as a way to avoid violence, graffiti is an outlet for many to express their feelings. Making street art illegal limits the freedom of artists to create influential masterpieces. Graffiti artists create works that reflect both struggles and accomplishments and at many times display political and social messages. The paint that coats walls in communities everywhere can contain symbolism so profound that it has been compared to poetry." [1] As you can see, graffiti requires enough to be seen as an art. Everything can be an art. Even doing nothing is an art. So graffiti is art, no matter how bad, humiliating, or illegal it may be. Graffiti requires creativity, courage, expression, all the signs of a masterpiece. So how could this thing, though illegal possibly not be and art? According to our definition, and all definitions, graffiti is an art, no matter how wrong it may or may not be. sources: 1.http://chscourier.com...