The question of whether or not graffiti can be considered as a form of art relates to wider debates around the question ‘What is art?’. This question has been the subject of hot debate by art historians for many years and is notoriously difficult to answer. However, in the next activity, you will take on the challenge and attempt to answer the question yourself.
Allow about 20 minutes
Did you find this activity difficult? If so, you are in good company as thus far no universally agreed answer to the question ‘What is art?’ has been reached. In fact, there as many different definitions as there are people providing those definitions. Some of the characteristics that are often identified as making something ‘art’ include:
You may have mentioned one or more of these characteristics in your own answer to question (b).
The Collins Paperback English Dictionary (1999) defines art as: ‘The creation of works of beauty or other special significance’ and ‘Human creativity as distinguished from nature’. How far does this reflect your own views?
Answers to the question ‘What is art?’ are not straightforward because images, objects or concepts can have very different effects on different people in different contexts and can be interpreted in many different ways. The question ‘What is art?’ is not only relevant in relation to decisions of what to formally exhibit in art galleries and museums, but can also be asked in the context of less formal, everyday settings. Coming back to the example of graffiti: let us now consider different arguments for and against the perception of graffiti as a form of art or as vandalism.
OpenLearn - Visions of protest: Graffiti
Except for third party materials and otherwise, this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence, full copyright detail can be found in the acknowledgements section. Please see full copyright statement for details.