New York woman falls, rips Picasso painting

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Ste Ven is no comformist!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

*conformist

[Jenn! 918]

lol @ Ste Ven

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Do you keep writing Michelangelo like that on purpose?

I'm talking about Michael Angelo, the graffiti artist.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Naturally, that's to paint all of them with the same brush.

Do you know of anyone who painted graffiti on their own property?

What if Michael Angelo had painted on a wall of a church without the Church's permission? Would that fresco not be art, even if it was done illegally?

It may still of been of high artistic quality, but its value as art would be overridden by the theft involved in the choice of the surface used.

Also I'm not sure I see the difference between artistic quality and artistic value - its sort of the same thing surely.

Quality is a measure of the excellence of a thing. Value is a measure of its worth.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There are urban art programs with designated areas for graffiti artists to spray. So whether I have seen it or not, it is merely enough to know that such things exist and that we shouldn't write people off as

On the other thing, if you can't use the quality of something as a guide to assessing its value, what else are you going to use?

Is bad work worth the same as good work? If not there are plenty of cowboy interior decorators out there...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It may still of been of high artistic quality, but its value as art would be overridden by the theft involved in the choice of the surface used.

Defacement is not theft. If it were, the first ones I'd go after are those people that place flyers on the windshield of cars.

[Scott & Lai 12]

There are urban art programs with designated areas for graffiti artists to spray. So whether I have seen it or not, it is merely enough to know that such things exist and that we shouldn't write people off as

On the other thing, if you can't use the quality of something as a guide to assessing its value, what else are you going to use?

Is bad work worth the same as good work? If not there are plenty of cowboy interior decorators out there...

Ok, then, I'll grant you that in the example you just posted, that graffiti would not be theft, as property rights are not being violated and it isn't about marking territory (i.e., dogs pissing on walls). But what percentage of graffiti falls under such examples?

In general, quality may be used as a guide in assessing something's value, but quality and value are different things and are not coterminus. Do we need a Venn diagram again?

[Scott & Lai 12]

Defacement is not theft. If it were, the first ones I'd go after are those people that place flyers on the windshield of cars.

Defacement damages and decreases the value of someone else's property and requires a cost (time, energy, cleaning supplies, etc.) to fix, hence morally at the very least, it is stealing. Windshield flyers wouldn't be defacement, unless the flyer somehow damages the glass or paint of the car. Normally, the car owner doesn't incur a cost in the process of removing the flyer. It might perhaps be considered littering.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No idea what percentage falls under that description, but that has nothing the art form. Graffiti styles have been employed in other contexts other than random spray on walls.

As to value there's intrinsic value and subjective value. The property owner might not find value in it, but that still doesn't mean its of "no" value. You can't assess intrinsic value without a consideration of quality - so they are at least related.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

No idea what percentage falls under that description, but that has nothing the art form. Graffiti styles have been employed in other contexts other than random spray on walls.

As to value there's intrinsic value and subjective value. The property owner might not find value in it, but that still doesn't mean its of "no" value. You can't assess intrinsic value without a consideration of quality - so they are at least related.

Very little graffiti is random spraying. Almost all of it says something.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Very little graffiti is random spraying. Almost all of it says something.

All "art" says something.

[Peikko 1,575]

Damage is not theft, and in the case of graffiti the injured party can be and almost always is put back to his original postion without great expense, and often without being charged directly for the clean up.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Damage is not theft, and in the case of graffiti the injured party can be and almost always is put back to his original postion without great expense, and often without being charged directly for the clean up.

What about the increased cost of doing business in a location? Business owners can be fined if the graffiti is not removed in a timely manner, often as little as 24 hours, at the business owner's expense, or the requirement for the application of graffiti proof coatings.

ETA: They are getting serious! http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0609/graffiti.html

Edited January 27, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[Danno 1,228]

Speaking of "damage to others in the name of Art".

If graffiti is legit art, how about someone who victimizes other people catches it on film or Vid for the purposes of bringing this form of "realism art" to the front?

Can drawings or photos of children playing "doctor" also be art?