Graffiti vs art debate reignited following court case - Video

graff is very much more than what you think for all those talking about graf but have never wrote in your life and got no clue and will never understand it. id rather paint the streets than work a 9 to 5 job if you ask me and i feel sorry for all that have their eyes closed every day.graffitti is abscure for ordinary people who havent got the eye for it and hate it once they look at it and never give it chance. so please leave me you city,state, and adresss and ill leave you with something to talk crap about online..

Graffiti is the signature of somebody who considers themselves as obscure, but street art is about enhancement and sureness of skills.

Art has often stood in conflict with societal norms and yet, at the same time, it has often played an important role in encouraging dialog around 'unsavoury' subject matter. Street art (or graffiti or vandalism as you prefer) is often used by artists as a vehicle for provoking discussion and expressing personal, social, environmental, or political messages to a diverse public audience. I have a lot of respect for those artists out there doing this work and I see their role as being a valuable one. While I say this, I'd like to point out that I am not (nor have I ever been) a street/graffiti artist (or tagger) nor do I have any friends involved in this scene. In my opinion, well designed and executed street art can enhance otherwise dull and uninspiring public spaces (and this includes other forms of art such as sculpture and performance). We shouldn't be calling these artists vandals - we should be celebrating their attempts at enhancing our culture. If the law won't adapt to the changing realities in our society then perhaps the council should find new ways to work with the artists within the confines of the law (an example would be the excellent Auckland City Art Gallery exhibition highlighted in this piece).