Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

[powermode]

X02WyvernLord

But you can figure out who made those paintings/drawings/sculptures/etc,.

How?

[Vena]

X02WyvernLord

Vena

You can paint/draw/sculpt/create without making the point monetary too. I don't think you can reach a 'pure' form of art. It's completely subjective.

On the flip side, we have some great murals outside my school that are under a bridge, but all around it are ugly tags and random things kids spraypaint when they are bored at night. Which is just vandalism.

But you can figure out who made those paintings/drawings/sculptures/etc, while with graffiti you can sometimes never figure out who made it unless its for recognition or you catch them doing it.

not true. There is plenty of paintings/drawings/sculptures that are anonymous, or have never been identified. Graffiti is just a medium. It's the intent behind a piece that makes it.

[An Invisible Elephant]

X02WyvernLord

But you can figure out who made those paintings/drawings/sculptures/etc, while with graffiti you can sometimes never figure out who made it unless its for recognition or you catch them doing it.

tags and tags on pieces are a name, a signature. exactly as you'll find on a painting or other artwork... That's like me signing my name cionnaith.... few people will know who that is in real life, but it's still my name in regards to my art, and thus people know who it was by.

[Vena]

The graffiti in my neighborhood is the result of punks who get bored and want to spray s**t on garbage cans.

[X02WyvernLord]

Vena

The graffiti in my neighborhood is the result of punks who get bored and want to spray s**t on garbage cans.

Then make murials on the walls of the cities, combat their crap with art...

[Vena]

X02WyvernLord

Vena

The graffiti in my neighborhood is the result of punks who get bored and want to spray s**t on garbage cans.

Then make murials on the walls of the cities, combat their crap with art...

It's still vandalizing property. Maybe I could make the most beautiful mural in the world, but it's still destruction of someone else's property, and if the owner of the property doesnt want it there I have caused them a big inconvenience in time and money.

[X02WyvernLord]

And I have finally been corrected...

[Pink]

X02WyvernLord

Art, to some, is expression of the soul or heart. Its not done for money, fame, or power (Usually), but instead to get a point across. It pure as it can be incorruptable when not gang related...

o________o Um. History, much?

...But there's just so many ways to go with this.

Firstly, there would have to be a consensus on what "pure" art is even defined as. The way you describe art only translates to me as "sparkly rainbow farts and wunnerful happy bunnies" because it's such a naive notion. Not done for money, fame or power? Graffiti (which I don't discern from "tagging" since they're both done on surfaces that don't belong to the artist in the first place) is territorial. The act of tagging your name onto something, or tagging an affiliation isn't done for any form of notoriety? Bullshit.

The one thing I think you and I would agree on is that art is a form of communication.

More later, I've got somewhere to be.

[X02WyvernLord]

Graffiti is NOT always territorial Mr. Pink, that is what many people believe and although it is partially true (gang related) Graffiti is an art like all others... it can be good or bad just like everyother form of art.

Edit: and no I don't mean to give the idea that its a "sparkly rainbow farts and wunnerful happy bunnies", have you ever seen the good graffiti in the cities?

[Pink]

I never said it -wasn't- art.

However the difference between IT and MY art, is the fact that I don't have to run from cops to do mine.

I'm not against the aesthetic of it. There's a lot of interesting and exciting work out there, and yes, I've seen some skilled stuff; I travel. To some degree I also have respect for someone who can master the intricacies of using and controlling a spray can, and someone who can work quickly yet skillfully.

But I don't respect the act of victimizing someone else's property or other public spaces where the work isn't commissioned. In civilized western society we're allowed to draw and paint whatever we want on things we own, regardless of subject matter, so there's no need to mark up other people's stuff. Perhaps one day when I live in a place where freedom of expression is being irresponsibly hindered I'll feel differently but that's not the case right now.

Now, what strikes me as naive is the idea that art is ONLY valid when it's made under the stringent criteria of being made for "free" and "for expression\". The way you've defined "purity", whether or not you realize it, is implying that there's something "unpure" about being paid to draw, and the implication of anything with regard to purity further implies that one is "right" and one is "wrong". A sizable percentage of notable historic artwork is commissioned work. Its influence on culture is heavy, but people paid for it to be made to spec. Additionally I'm sure a ton of professionals and aspiring professionals would beg to differ about this sense of art and purity that you haven't really been clear on in the first place.

What, by your definition is "pure", and if a work of art is "pure" by your definition, does this mean that "pure" artwork is better or more important than "unpure" artwork? How? What's even the point of designating between the two?

Then you go so far as to say that graffiti is this form of "pure" art when you yourself acknowledge that a function of this type of work DOES lie in marking territory. That fact alone makes it as impure as other avenues of art would be. Some is good, some is not, just as you said, and thus, graffiti isn't any type of "pure" art.

Sorry I didn't expand on this but the sparkly rainbow farts comment is really my own observation of people who post about graffiti on Gaia. There's always a guy who comes in this forum, posts about Graffiti and is just dying to mention that it, too, is valid art as if the rest of us had never realized this before. Also, the people who post about it (in my experience) always tend to over-romanticize it as if a graffiti artist is somehow more noble than some boring jerk who just paints on canvas. You're another guy in a long line of guys who do this. I tend to categorize idealized notions of art under "sparkles, rainbows, and other sickeningly sweet crap", and should have clarified a little more.

[Sleeping in the Clouds]

pure? so the art i do in my free time for myself isnt pure?
or is graffiti pure because they share it with the world. not the world literally but you know what i mean.

[Stop Him]

Pink

There's always a guy who comes in this forum, posts about Graffiti and is just dying to mention that it, too, is valid art as if the rest of us had never realized this before. Also, the people who post about it (in my experience) always tend to over-romanticize it as if a graffiti artist is somehow more noble than some boring jerk who just paints on canvas.

heh.

From the other side, it should be noted, there's plenty of folks who get in some artistic snit of denial over the idea that graffiti can ever be art, or maintain that it "insults" artists or art itself - as if the concept of art had feelings that could be insulted...

[Pink]

Damn good point. I would hate to imply that, as well.

[Hawt_Ice_Cream]

it depends on whos doing it and for what reason, i use to be a graf artist, and from what i got from it is that if you work hard and put you a** on the line and are determine to fight for your respcet and props (which is all a graf artist can get) well i wouldn't say purist form of art but, i'd say its a poetic art form.