So long as it’s done we’ll and is visually arresting and engaging – I like it. And yes, I realize those are subjective traits.

I am on the fence about whether the placement of the work should be done with permission of the property owners. On the one hand, it seems like the right thing to do. On the other hand, it kind of strips the art of its guerrilla quality. That being said, there’s a better chance the art will not get painted over if you get permission first – so there’s that to consider.

Some of it is amazing and some is just everyday tagging with illegible bubble letters. I prefer when it is done with permission so it can be viewed and enjoyed by many.

http://www.woostercollective.com/ is a site that features street art and artists.

I don’t like tagging. That’s just ugly but some street art is beautiful.

Over here there are some outlets for legal street art. For instance the council runs a competition for artists to paint its traffic signal boxes.

In many areas the power poles have art on them. Plus street artists are commissioned to paint on fences around the place.
These are all examples of legal street art. I like it. I think it’s bright and happy and adds interest to our freeways and the like. Plus it provides an outlet for artists.

Do you have similar art in your cities?

I don’t really like it, and I find it as elitist and discriminatory as many other genres, precisely because of sentiments already expressed here. We’ve had artists in our community complain that less skilled or more vandalizing graffiti artists have ruined their art.

A lot of it is really well done, and some of those people really have talent. A lot of it on the other hand is crappy, but there are taggers and spray painters who really are artists. Some of it is a hell of a lot of work.

I don’t know much about the history of ’‘wild graffiti’’, although I’m pretty sure that rebellion and sticking it to the man by defacing private property has some role to play. However, that doesn’t mean it can’t be a legitimate art form, and more serious taggers have gone up the ladder by working in legitimate studios, or starting their own. With or without all that, I consider it a legitimate art form, and often I find it more interesting than a lot of contemporary art.

Just sucks that a lot of this culture keeps itself in a rut by purposely breaking rules. :/ But it sure makes ugly buildings and trains a lot more interesting to look at haha.

When it’s done well or even carries an important cultural message then it’s an awesome addition to the urban landscape. When it’s just pinheads spewing out their inner angst though, “If yoo reed this den yoo suk cok” then it’s no good to any fucker…terrible spelling really doesn’t help either :D

I’m not even going to give this animal the satisfaction of trying to read it. That’s just what it wants.

Hank Hill, looking at grafiti

XD

Painting buildings with ego-centric designs is illegal and should remain so. Even when it is done to “beautify” a tenement, it’s distracting an degrading. I believe “street art” is a medium for “artists” that have no talent and are too lazy to study their art and too ignorant to be real artists.
These “artists” have no respect for other people’s property, are self indulgent, and should be captured and forced to clean up the damage they create.

Time and place, time and place.

I see a difference between spray painted gang signs and a piece someone actually took time to make, regardless of where it is. Yeah, it’s illegal and can make a building look worse, but it also depends on where it is. There’s not many people just hanging out under an overpass to be that bothered by it. If it’s at a children’s park, that is different.

i have seen street art photos on Web sites that is absolutely amazing. Much of it ranks pretty high up in aethestic, humorous or political quality in my opinion. Murals can be spectacular too and a way to enhance a neighborhood. I see it as an art form distinct from tagging and grafitti, although I don’t necessarily object to all graffiti either.

@Blackberry Why is it different? Why is it okay to paint on a private building and not on a play structure? Why is it okay to make an underpass unsightly? Is the street artist’s aesthetic superior to that of the designer of a utilitarian structure?

Street art is a kind of vandalism that is a form of art as valid as traditional art, and those who do it should be made to pay for the damages, if the property owner does not like it.

If a world famous artist painted the 16 chapel on the side of my garage without permission, it would be just the same as if it were a graffiti artist painting something.

The only real difference I guess, is that not all graffiti artists are good, some are just people drawing a cock and balls with “bobby is a bender” written under it, but then again you do get some silly art in museums too.

Graffiti is art, it can be just as clever and thought provoking as any traditional piece of art, but it is also vandalism too.

I completely agree with @poisonedantidote. Locally we have a few spaces done by local artists that are beautiful and a boon to the downtown social area, with permission of course. It’s very popular here.

Officially called graffiti Value: worthless vandalism.

Officially called art Value: 2 million bucks.

Mostly, I like graffiti.

Street art without permission is vandalism. Even when it is beautiful it is vandalism. I don’t approve of vandalism, but that type of art when done legally with permission can be great.

@zenvelo Well, I guess it’s not different, but I was only thinking aesthetically. What I mean is that a person may care if the walls outside of the restaurant they own are vandalised, more than if it was under an overpass.

I agree with @cookieman

I call well done street art ” affirmative vandalism.” lol
I used to sculpt and did really wonderful faces with all manner of wacky expressions. I always wanted to go around and leave my little sculpted faces on peoples doorsteps. Being a zany and highly creative type I thought it would be grand fun to have an entire neighborhood in an uproar over the mystery faces that randomly turned up. haha

No offense intended, but usually it is the rigid and uncreative types that lack a sense of delight and humor and are dismally bereft of creative expression that take offense at the myriad forms of artistic expression.
Note: I am not talking about offensive, crude or perverted expression.

@Coloma I don’t think you can compare your sculptures to having to scrub or paint over street art. If you had left me and a bunch of people in the community a sculpture I would think it a great thing. If you spray painted the side of my house, not so much.

@JLeslie Of course. I do not advocate defacing private property, especially not ones home.

@poisonedantidote Is that a urinal?

@dxs Don’t be silly, how could a urinal be worth 2 million bucks? That is a signed urinal turned on its back, much more valuable.

@poisonedantidote I much prefer the graffiti in the two examples you gave. I would have that on a wall in my house.

While some street art/graffiti is awesome and beautifully done, when it comes down to it, if it’s done without permission then it is still vandalism. I don’t believe that you should have to deface others’ property just so you can express your art. If you have permission to do the street art, then that’s awesome and I support that! However, I don’t think that graffiti is an okay form of vandalism just because it’s “art”.

I like the good stuff. I don’t like the tagging and kids with a can of spray paint putting their names and other garbage on walls and fences. Their parents obviously did not teach them respect for other’s property.

Legalized street art resolves some issues that people may have with it. But it also changes the medium. The medium is the message.

Initial chuckling aside, Duchamp is a pretty critical point of discussion when it comes to “What is art?”

Would I pay $2 million for a urinal? No. But the discussion that it provokes is infinitely more interesting than the first piece.

this is a master. And here is a whole group of masters. How can you not love this art???

It’s vandalism. If the owner of the vandalized property does not care that it is being defaced, and chooses not to attempt to pursue the perp, then the best I can say it is oddly curious and occasionally colorful.
Nothing I would ever hang on my wall in the living room however. Certainly nothing I would spend a penny on if I were at the local monthly gallery cruise downtown.

If the owner of the property does not like it, it is a crime. Probably tough to prosecute without an eyewitness, but a crime never the less.

If it is on public property, and I am thus part owner, then I sort of resent that some self absorbed asshole assumes I will have to look at it or pay to clean it off. In which case I think it is shit.

What used to be the Warehouse District in downtown L.A. is now the Arts District. There are pieces up all over, youngish people are moving in and creating an arts culture. Say hello to gentrification. In this case I think it’s been nothing but a boon to the area. The art on the walls adds a flair and a community feeling.

As for tagging…eh. Watcha gonna do? For me,it just blends into the background.

I’d like those with artistic talent and something worthwhile to say to seek out legal opportunities to display their art in public places. They could bring samples to business or building owners and get approval to install their art in an approved place. Good street art is often more attractive than blank walls and of course it discourages tagging. Many cities are open to such arrangements and it adds to the charm of the city.

If its good art and not just some little fucks “tagging” the name of their “crew”, and it’s not on any of my stuff, I don’t mind it at all.
When it looks like someone gave kindergarteners spray paint, it annoys the hell out of me.