The Council’s Ruling — Graffiti

May 19, 2008, 12:00 pm; posted by
Filed under Council  | No Comments

This and every Monday, the Bweinh!tributors, having convened in secret for hours of reasoned debate and consideration, will issue a brief and binding ruling on an issue of great societal import.

This week’s question — Is graffiti art?

The Council issues the ruling of “Yes,” but was unable to agree on a rationale.

Josh offers this opinion, joined by Chloe:

Absolutely. Like all art, it is an expression of an individual, there is skill and technique involved, and there are good and bad examples. Like much art, it also happens to be subversive.

 

Steve offers this opinion, joined by Job:

Yes, illegal or not, but only insofar as it embodies creativity.

 

Chloe offers this opinion, joined by Erin:

Yes — one word, Banksy.

 

MC-B joins this opinion:

Yes – just not usually legal.

 

Josh and David join this opinion:

Graffiti is one of the truest forms of art. Anonymous (mostly) it signifies angst, passion, love and anger in a setting open to all viewers and with the artist not receiving, or expecting, any compensation.

 

Connie offers this opinion, joined by Tom, and Kaitlin:

Like anything, it must evaluated piece by piece. Some is absolutely art, one look will convince anyone — but some is absolute trash.

 

Djere offers this opinion, joined by Kaitlin:

It depends. Graffiti as vandalism is not art, it’s a nuisance and a crime. Graffiti, given the proper permission, can be beautiful, thought-provoking, and inventive.

 

Mike played no part in the determination of this issue.

 

Next time: What is the worst color to paint a house?


Comments

Leave a comment!





Comment spam protected by SpamBam