Osler's Razor

No, Art has a much thinner face and still has not gone completely bald.
 

Aristotle theorized, (didn't he? - wow- Freshman English rears its ugly head....) that art is supposed to be cathartic and this is why it is necessary. I see art as an expression, whatever the medium. So if this person expresses himself through graffiti then this is art. Art is subjective, so one person's art is another person's you know whatever.

So art is in the eye of the beholder I guess. You could even say your blog is art, or that you make an art out of the teaching of law.
I prefer the weird ones.. Picasso, Miro, Chagall and Dali. I like them because you can rarely figure out what they are supposed to be.
 

It is indeed art and I agree, art can be almost any expression in any place.

It could also be destruction of property punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.

In an alley... well, maybe not a big deal. But on the side of your house or a Church or even a retail establishment, yes, BIG DEAL! So where to draw the line between harmless graffiti and desecration of private property?

Maybe a black line demarcating the difference between expression and destruction isn't really appropriate, maybe some discretion is called for... leading us back to the topic of sentencing.

And yes, that piece of art could be protected by copyright. The artist clearly should check with his attorney... This blog could be infringing the artist's rights!
 

Or maybe the question is when does art become illegal? Does it cease to be art -- doubt it. Should it?

And, should "it" ever be illegal? If art is a form of catharsis or expression (rather than beautification), is it a matter of which jurisdiction it is made in?
 

Of course it is art. When archeologists dug up the Roman city of Pompeii, long burried by the ash of Mount Vesuvious, one of the things they spent the most time studying were the different grafitti messages on the walls to determine, among other things, the political climate in the city at the time of the incident. If nothing else, it's significant as a historical record
 

Even if its on the Church or school or private home, it's art, but its also illegal and the artist should be punished for trespass. It's a risk the artist took when he or she created the art.

Kind of like passive resistance. You take the action knowing that there will be consequences.

Some forms of expression are shocking, offensive and totally inappropriate, if not illegal. And society has the right, if not the duty to both stop such forms of expression and punish those that express themselves that way. But it still could be considered "art."
 

To add to the debate, I humbly submit the case of Borf, a rather prolific DC graffiti artist.

http://www.dcist.com/archives/2005/01/10/who_is_borf.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302448.html

Was it art? Property destruction? Punk performance? All of the above?

Who knows? Labelling things kind of misses the point.
 

Poseur,

As a DC resident, I had Borf in mind when I posted earlier. He was a jerk and deserved the jail time he received. His "work" was all over the place, including on places where it was totally inappropriate.

Yet his work was artistic and creative. He paid the price for his deeds, however. Only he can tell if it was worth it.
 

I thought you might. I think Borf had some great work (notably when he managed to get one of his pictures on a busy highway), but most of it was annoying as all hell. And the guy was a total tool. The whole anti-capitalism screed is something I have no patience for.

He was no Cool "Disco" Dan.
 

OH You Nutty Lawyers...

I agree that THIS art on Osler's blog is illegal and I did know that.. and if that building is owned by someone other than the artist, then yes it is definitely illegal I am not excusing the graffiti artist, here but I thought Osler's question was more along the lines of, "Is this art even though it is on the side of a building?" I mean Maybe this person did not have access to art classes as a kid, or maybe he never went to a museum, or maybe he feels oppressed by the poverty and decay in this part of Detroit and this is his way of "getting back."

HOWEVER on the other side if you notice in the background there is a HUGE building that has the giant face of like a pig or something on it and THAT IS "sanctioned" art. The owners or builders of Eastern Market actually put that face on there ON PURPOSE and it has been on there for years and I have always thought it was Heinous.

SO In conclusion, that guy's graffiti is "art" but it is illegal and infringes on the laws of society. BUT that other "art" - the pig face on that giant building, that is LEGAL art BUT it infringes on my - I don't know - sense of taste, I guess. SO in MY opinion they are both works of art but the illegal one is not half as heinous as the legal one.

I would much prefer that artists used a CANVAS instead of a building. But then I live in a little town in Oregon, on a street filled with beautiful new houses that have lawns filled with thousands of Christmas lights and inflatable snowmen & Grinches and other even scarier things... so what do I know???
 

It's art. Whether it's legal or appropriate is entirely irrelevant. Art has nothing to do with the law. Now, whether it's good art is another matter. I tend to like this sort of thing because it eschews the mainstream "art market" and doesn't comply with any modern conventions of art production in an industrial post-modern society. Anarchism has its place, after all.
 

Surrender Dorothy
 

IPLG - THAT was the best graffiti! It's a shame that Maryland had to remove it!
For you non-DCers, "Surrender Dorothy" was on a railroad bridge over the beltway with a view of the spires of the Mormon Temple in front of you... Perfect!
 

...what the medievalists said.

Besides, this almost inspires me to get some lilac spray paint and leave some fluffy bunnies on Baylor's campus!

Dim Joke, however, probably wouldn't agree with me that spray paint puffalumps are art. :'o(