I was out with my parents one day, eating at a restaurant in my town and afterwards going for a little Verdauungsspaziergang, when I figured "Hey, let's show my dad (he's in his 70's) the graffitti and murals in the area, just to see what happens." And we went around to my favourite spots, under the overpass, along the factory wall and to the WWII air raid bunker. My dad looked at all of them, criticizing, evaluating, interpreting...things you do with art and paintings. But he didn't seem overly enthused. *_YEARS_* later, completely out of the blue, he asks me if that one mural under the bridge is still there and if we can do another tour. So I guess it must've been art. 😄
A school in my Swabian hometown has had an area where it is legal to spray for about two decades now and that has improved the look of the city by a lot. Graffiti here is never destructive and only used to improve, in my opinion, ugly areas, which shows. I don’t think a single graffiti had to be removed in the last 10 years.
If the graffiti is destroying the intended purpose of the "canvas" I consider it vandalism when it comes to public property. A concrete bridge, an underpass, a power sub station etc can hardly deserve fantastic art more. But public (well, commissioned I guess) art, shop windows, street signs and similar have a purpose that is meddled with when graffiti is applied. The original artists intention is changed, the function of the window destroyed, the signs message compromised usw. On privately owned property I think it's up to the owner to decide. That's where I stand today. So I smile when I see freight train wagons rolling by with art on them but I'm a lot more annoyed by passenger trains with spray paint all over the windows. And no, I can't wrap my head around the annoying tagging.
Graffiti "artists" smearing their tasteless, bland tag over an elaborate and beautiful piece of graffiti art (even when the latter is also illegal), is the height of disrespect and narcissism.
Also not all graffiti "artists" are artists. Some do a terrible job. Also tagging is not graffiti. And here in Los Angeles we have a lot more tagging than graffiti.
If you think that it is up to the owner to decide, then why would you smile at art on freight trains. I can't imagine that any freight train owners would want it on their cars.
@@Biga101011 For freight trains, it doesn't matter. They don't have windows, and they're usually considered ugly anyway. Many of them don't even have brand/company name labels on them, either, so they have no advertisement value. And if they had, well, screw advertising anyway, the world is such a worse place for having so many ads in it. Freight trains aren't really privately owned, either. They tend to belong to companies, not individuals, and while that is often considered to be "private", as opposed to public, it's not the same as, say, a house that someone lives in (which is probably what OP meant by private property). Really, commercial/business-owned property should be separated from truly private/individual-owned property.
Great video as always! I have just a very minor and, in the context of the video, very inconsequential correction: In Germany, Graffiti is not punishable under § 303 I StGB, since the substance of the building is not changed or damaged. Because of that, § 303 II StGB was introduced which punishes substantially and permanently changing the appearence of someones property in order to prosecute street artists.
about 10 years ago my city allowed spraying and invited to graffiti for some underground street crossings which otherwise just had gray concrete walls. I think this was a big gain for everyone. recently the city overpained it gray. now it looks quite sad again but I hope a new generation of graffiti artists will fix that soon.
I have always owned dogs. Tagging is just what my male dogs do at every corner and has just about the same value as any puddle on the tarmac. And graffiti over train windows is just vandalism. But when an artist has the ability and the intention to make the city more beautiful or more interesting, I'm all for it.
Again, great research - work. I really love graffiti if it's done well and expresses the thoughts and feelings of the artist. But, what I absolutely don't like, is people just spraying their tag anywhere they like to, these guys remind of a dog that marks his territory. Even in my small city of 50k people, we have various places for graffity art.
I see it practically. Some graffitis are really art and other graffitis creates a good amount of sales volume for corporations and jobs. The point for me is, a good graffiti is way better than a grey wall.
Hi Ashton, That was another fascinating video with food for thought. There is another interesting aspect here in Germany that needs to be addressed in this context: "Kunst am Bau", preferably translated as "Percent for Art". This is a concept for public buildings that was developed around 1919 in the Weimar Republic and aimed to subsidise local artists in need with a percentage of the building sum. This concept still exists at state level. But it had its pitfalls: I remember a school from the 1960s that was to be renovated. This included the façade, which was decorated with a "work of art" from that period. The heirs then issued a temporary injunction against the measure in a flash, because the artwork would have been destroyed and the ensemble, art and façade, ruined. German copyright law is very tricky in this context. As the rights holder, you can grant rights of use, for a fee, of course. However, this does not automatically include the right to copy, reproduce, modify or even destroy. As far as graffiti is concerned, things get interesting when, for example, Banksy sprays on a worthless ruin and his work is categorised as being worth millions. In terms of property law, this should be unproblematic: the spray mist can be defined as a thing and, as a thing, it is firmly attached to the building and has therefore become the property of the owner of the ruin. Under copyright law, however, the situation could be quite different. These thoughts should be given special consideration in Berlin - if only to avoid claims for damages.
I'm also on the side of graffiti being art, tagging aside. It's always a pleasure to see more people being creative with street, buildings and other parts of cities!
Simple tags are definitely a nuisance... the big question is at what point a tag becomes art. And I would definitely suggests artists to seek permission first.
Would you like to get up one day to find your house carrying a new, colorful message you might not even support? --> crime. If an artist has the permission (or the mandate from the owner) to change the building or structure to artwork --> art. But, Germany would not be Germany if there wouldn't be laws and regulations, even as an owner you can get in trouble if you decided to do so. In Regensburg, the so-called "Bunte Haus" (pictures can be found in Google easily) caused some discussion after the city found the house “too different”. The owner was requested to change the house to "uncolored" again and he even was prepared to take the risk of a court case, which was reported in the press until the city finally gave up. There is now a second house of this type in Regensburg.
Here in Sioux City, Iowa, U.S there are areas in which either the city or the owner has put major graffiti art on buildings and walls, the city itself for a few years now has said yes to having to what is known to Alleyway Art in which the city has a weekend in which artist come in and put drawings anywhere in any Alley and it has become so popular that other types of artist, such as painters, photographers, woodworkers, and others, come and set up a table on the street to try and sell their stuff. There use to be a time during the summer in which the city just did 1 art get together called Art Splash, but now during the summer, thanks to Alleyway Art, it now has 2 Art public get togethers, and both of them last up to 3 days.
Thanks again for an interesting and thoughtful video! You may have heard about the Happy Go Lucky Hostel in Charlottenburg, at the Stuttgarter Platz. This facade painting by Irishman Dom Browne has become an international landmark of Berlin graffiti, much photographed and best visible from the S-Bahn that passes nearby. Apparently, the local administration was successful in suing the owner over the "screamingly colourful" street art which, in their opinion, disturbs the view of another facade that is protected under the Denkmalschutz act. Mind you, architecture of that Gründerzeit kind (late 19th-century) is abundant all over the city. I really felt ashamed of my home town. As to your question, I can tolerate, and even like, street art, but dislike tagging. It's just ugly. When there is some structural challenge in the art, when it comes across as unique and somehow related to its sorroundings, and appears not overly shticky, then it speaks to me.
There was a blank 10*10 meter wall in my neighborhood in Amsterdam that kept getting tagged, so they commissioned an artist to just make the entire wall an art piece. There's one less boring blank (or ugly tagged) wall and one more big art piece making the neighborhood more beautiful. Win-win situation and it hasn't been tagged since.
Well, it is always difficult to draw a line. As you mentioned, for me on one end, the dispicable act, is the mindless tagging and on the other the more elaborate graffitis which exist in the environment they have been planted into. And like a piece of art a graffiti needs to be separated from other "artist's" work or in this setting, misdeeds. And the complete coverage of every spot of vertical area I really loathe. Because it shows a disfunctional society and entices people to do other really bad things. I am reminded of the park in New York which had been a dangerous corner because all the plants and everything was just rotten. Once a citizen's group took care of the area and kept it tidy and neat all the bad boys (drug dealers and what-have-you) went away. The crime rate sank drastically. That example shows clearly that neglected areas are a breeding ground of crime and social decay. And those graffiti, once they take up too much space, indicate that the society has given up on that place. And that leads to lawlessness because everybody sees clearly he can do whatever he wants at that area. Everything goes. So there is not only an estethic aspect but also a sociological one. Too much graffiti shows a society falling apart. When I was in Berlin the last time (2015) all the green spaces in parks were unkempt due to Berlin having no money. And I definitely felt being in the wrong place. No more in Germany but in a kind of slum. This video shows the creative and ingenious graffiti I wouldn't mind seeing. ruclips.net/video/4RJR-SNwWxs/видео.htmlsi=FdpDp-mhEzL8_G8H
- Street art was confirmed by the owner of the property. - Graffiti is destructive and "ha-ha". - Both often times still don't fit in the overall street design. Still allowing it, similar to individualistic houses, eventually destroy the aestetic street. - Street art was strong in Berlin, because the East has shit houses, designs til today and large parts of the West similarily, because they had to save and are poor. So, Street art then helps lifting things up, but also had to be regulated and confirmed by traditionalists, because otherwise you just have a lot of Street art being used similarily to Graffiti without being embedded. - Graffiti is still used, also opon Street art, destructively.
Halle (Saale) has its own street art gallery, called "Freiraumgalerie"- but it is not a museum with entrance fees like in Amsterdam, but a whole area with more than 70 gigantic murals, that cover whole house walls. There are offered guided tours. Best thing, its located right next to the main railway station, so it is easy to find and access for tourits and visitors. Additionally, the passenger tunnels around the station are also covered in graffiti art, that was deliberately ordered by the Deutsche Bahn to enhance the beauty of the surroundings.
Here in my city in Denmark. Taastrup, we have plenty of legal grafitti zones. Where artists are free to do their art. We are also the home place for the biggest graffiti group in Denmark MOA, (monsters of art). Just make it legal in some places, and the actually talented people will show up and make boring tunnels and underpasses into beautiful spectacles or modern art styles. Many artists are not going to tag on a wall that is actually beautiful, out of respect. But often it is about show off. And an underpass is the least showy thing you can do. Painting a full train cart between two stations, is one of the most difficult, dangerous and high prestige targets. Because of the technical execution required. In Shanghai you can go to university street 大学路 and fine full facade graffiti. It is beautiful.
Quite often owners engage street-art-artists to paint a really good graffity onto their walls to get rid of tagging on the same wall. Works due to the graffitiy-ethics-code not to spray over an existing high-quality graffitiy, Ashton explained, My company just did this last year.
I like street art but I don't condone tagging. And yup, ideally with permission. A relative of mine used to do street art and he was actually pretty successfully asking home owners for their permission to use certain walls. Because street art and murals can also be protection against vandalism as taggers will normally not encroach onto bigger works of street art. And I especially love street art that encompasses other things that are around. There is some seriously funny street art out there. And by far my favourite piece by Banksy to this day is the one where he turned a wall completely covered in tags into a stained-glass church window.. 🥰
We have been retired since the beginning of the new century. Our home base is here in the USA. Our daughter is in the U.S. Navy and we have traveled to some of her base locations in the U.S. and abroad. We also traveled a lot when we were working - mostly in the U.S. which has a lot to see. We have been to Asia, Europe, and Australia - and she has been to Costa Rica and the Carribean.
My experience with graffiti has been in NY and NJ. I was going to college in NYC when a graffiti boom hit the city and it was a blight on the city, especially on the subway system. I won't comment on Germany's experience since their history is so different.
There are examples where local authorities even ordered local spraying artists to paint public buildings. Like the underground station "Rennweg" in Nuremberg in 1993.
It's not either one or the other. It can be art, that's up to everyone to decide on their own. But it's always vandalism if it violates property rights of someone else including public property.
Interesting topic. There's some great art on german walls. In my town an elementary school has a large legal graffiti. The name and phone number of the artist is included so one could call him and ask him to paint one's garage door (or whatever). Our company even has an "official graffiti artist" as a tennant. As Ashton mentioned, there are some pretty good artists out there who should be promoted. Simple tagging? Um, not my idea of art. At least leave a message.
A number of early 80s movies were pretty important in bringing hip hop culture to Germany. Especially check out Beat Street (1984). Its wiki page explains its role to German hip hop in the legacy section. It's also a pretty good movie just on its own. Other examples are Wild Style (1983) and Style Wars (1983). Those movies depicted the New York scene. Another reason why Germany is more influence by that particular scene. (At least in regards to graffiti.)
Ha. Graffiti going from the avant-garde anti-establishment to mainstream acceptance on some level is like moms accompanying their kids when they hang out at the mall. It's not my personal go-to art form at all, but the less slapdash, more intentional stuff really is nice. I couldn't help but notice that where there was complete coverage of chaotic, slapdash, self-serving bits and pieces, a more intentional and thought out piece on top looked really nice.
Yes, there is the difference between tagging and art. An artist may ask the owner of the wall, if not allowed in advance, if he may put a picture there. Everyone else is just vandalizing and should pay for removal. Easy in case of tagging.
In my hometown of Saarbrücken there is a long concrete wall that seperates the river from the highway. It is legal to spray graffiti there and 99% of it is street art and not "vandalism". It is visible from the Park at the other side of the river and it's just part of the city! The people like it too
I live near the city of Heerlen in the south east of the Netherlands, very close to the German city of Aachen. Heerlen has become one of the hotspots for street art and culture in the Netherlands. There is a yearly break dance event and the city council has become very liberal concerning murals as long as they are created in designated spots or on private property with consent of the owner. 30m high blind walls of a row of high rise apartments have been adorned with gigantic pieces, a large mural depicting the towns history as a coal mining town was included in the design of the new railway station and shopping centre. Even closer to home under a couple of highway underpasses legal graffiti makes them look not as dark and gloomy as the naked concrete was. I consider this as an art form which can turn otherwise not to welcoming places in something nice. But graffiti, especially tagging, which is made without permission of the owner is always vandalising someone's property as far as I see it.
Not what I was "expecting" but on reflection it makes so much sense for you to cover this.. Absolutely love street art whether it be graffiti, murals, music, dance etc...
@@lazrseagull54I'd reward such tag "artists" in a court with 3 months of tag & graffiti cleaning labour... That would work well with the need to remove illegal graffiti and reduce the costs of overall damage. As well as demotivating vandals. Let's not forget, that 99+% of them are not artists, just people wanting to make a watsup picture or brag about vandalizing something... They're "work" has zero value of any kind, let alone as art. I'm quite sure that for really talented artists there's enough "surface sponsors" to keep them busy.
Interesting topic, but I would argue that painting/graffiti on private property or someone else's wall is the same as if I would put graffiti on another person's car without permission and call it art. This would be unheard of and who ever did it would have to pay for all the damages. I'm all for street art and freedom of expression as long as it is on public property where this is allowed and whoever does it finances the act and the cleaning process
I think this week you somehow missed the mark concerning the clear distinction between graffity as art and graffity as "tagging" to just vandalize... as you said: the German state and house owners spent hundreds millions of euro each year to remove illegal graffity. Yes, it is an artform and there is legal graffity, there are even a lot of walls where you can legally do your graffity. And there is a clear distinction between "artwork graffity" and just tagging your bullshit on any house wall - clearly not art, just damaging other peoples property. 99% of the graffity you see in Berlin is illegal graffity and has absolutely no artistic value. I myself spend around 100 euro and 2 days / year to remove some vandalization of our house wall... stupid shit like random letters, political statements like "free gaza" or "fuck for worldpeace" or whatever... clearly not art at all. Most neighbouring houses have basically given up and just dont remove it anymore and their walls look like shit. Basically the less you remove it, the more they keep tagging. One house in our street hired some graffity artists to place a large mural artwork graffity on their house to inhibit others from vandalizing with their "tagging" - but even that didnt work, they just tag over the artwork.... So to summarize: If there is consent by the owner of a house and it is artwork, sure, go ahead. If it is just tagging (to me this is like a dog marking territory with peeing everywhere) it is vandalizing and should be very clearly punished. And sadly, that does not happen.
I know someone in southern Germany as well that keeps having the wall or the garage of her small house spread with graffiti that she doesn’t want and she keeps having to spend money on paint and her time of painting over it it’s happened at , least twice or more.
Good morning Ashton! I'm loving your videos!!! I have an idea for you- is there a difference between the German fairy tales and the one's we grow up hearing our parents read to us as kids in the states? Reason being, we just had a big World Premiere performance last night - the choreographer used the original story of 'The Stolen Veil', which many say was the inspiration for the ballet 'Swan Lake'. I've been doing research on it while assisting the choreographer and see the original fairy tales here are quite dark. Disney lightened up the characters as well. I find this intriguing. Is it character building to our little people? Does it instil some sort of fear in one's early years? Lovely Holiday season to you all !!!!!
The “fairy tales” that the brothers Grimm collected were not intended for children. They were folk stories told by adults for adults. They are all full of metaphors and generally quite allegorical. They stem from a time when it was unwise or even unhealthy to say out loud what you thought about your government and other powers that be. So people put criticism into these stories. You can be sure that “Little red riding hood” (which should actually be translated as “little red cap”, which makes more sense) is not about an encounter with the species canis lupus (wolf).
@@Aine197 There's a lot of sex hidden in those stories, always being talked around, implied, replaced with allegories, what have you, but if you look in the origins, it's there. Sometimes one of those has roots in one of Germany's neighbors, and you can find there (or the experts found) a much rawer version of the story. Of course, they're not _all_ about sex, there are other motifs as well. Sometimes, they're about poverty, for example. The Star Money and The Little Match Girl have two very different tales - in one, the little girl gets rich, and in the other, she freezes to death. Greed is also a pretty common theme. And so on.
I‘m not going to be a Disney basher, but there has been a tendency to „lighten up“ stuff that is otherwise very dark. The worst travesty in this sense (that I‘m aware of) was their animated film of „The Hunchback of Notre Dame“ and its happy end for the three main characters. Definitely NOT what Victor Hugo wrote!!
Here in Münster, someone had the bright idea to use the fact that graffiti isn't usually painted over good-looking graffiti. You know these gray boxes on the sides of streets? The most common kind of them have been painted with graffiti-like pictures (several different themes) all over the city. And as far as I've seen, ever since, they haven't been vandalized. They also have two legal graffiti places - I've never been there, so no idea how well that works.
The closer I drive to the Rhein from my town the more internet boxes I see painted red and black. No words, no logos, just half red, half black. It just happened recently, and it took me a while to figure out what they mean. It's a soccer team. But my town has graffiti-like art showing up on those internet boxes, which is really pretty and obviously commissioned.
I do like colorful walls with murals more than black concrete or single colors. I think it is a great idea to give people public space for their craft - it is their hobby and they should not be driving into criminality to practice it and to be an artist that is hired for a job, you need to practice. In my city there are several areas where you can spray and some with established rules - e.g. "Anybody can spray, but their work has to be better than the one they replaced" - and the scene is watching and seeking out vandals - as it is about fame recognition.
From a UK point of view. I like street art, but only in locations which are authorised, the next issue should councils be required to authorise an area for street art? On Private property with the owners permission again no issues. But then without permission and especially tagging no this is just a crime against property and must be stopped. Transport for London - will not let a train enter service with graffiti on the vehicle, it is a zero tolerance approach.
Interesting side note. In the separated Berlin, the wall was technically built on the GDR side. So, the artists from the West were technically working on GDR state ground, which hindered west german Police to take actions against the artists.
Yes, indeed! The GDR was careful to place the wall just inside the actual border so that it was entirely on their territory, making the FRG helpless as far as demanding its removal.
@@michaelmedlinger6399 - as building a wall on foreign ground was even to foreign for the Politbüro. And no, the FRG haven’t had a say anyway as these events happened in Allied-controlled West-Berlin. Ah, remember Kennedy saying as it was yesterday: _"Ich bin ein Krapfen!"_
As someone who doesn't much care for my physical surroundings (I'm one that doesn't have pictures up in home, place is usually messy cos I'm not really paying attention, there's little "aesthetic" care taken anywhere in pysical realm), I do like "good" graffiti, it's the "tagging" I don't care for, but, don't really care if it's there. Actual "art" is cool, so long as it's in-keeping with the surroundings.
When I was in 7th or 8th grade, We got permission from the owner of a house in the city center to Paint a giant Mural as an art project, organizied by our art-teacher. So for a weak, instead of going to school we did this mural for 6 hours a day, and IIRC it was a pretty big deal in the city when finished for a while, with press and the mayor and everything. Probably gone by now, that was 25 years ago.
My hometown started an annual street art festival which is a whole week long. During that time they have different projects going on, which are mostly big murals. There are also vernisages and showings of movies that match the theme. Last year, i think we had international artists here. Our tourism board offers guided street art tours.
Unless the “artist” owns or has permission of the property owner, it’s vandalism! And where do you draw the line, no pun intended, if it’s acceptable for these vandals to spray paint my home, why not my car?
@@Rubicola174 That’s today’s major problem. People think laws are negotiable. I’ll pick and choose which ones I will obey. This attitude leads to the increasing chaos the west is experiencing.
@@YQN2149 Laws should never be negotiable. They should always apply. If you don’t like the law, change it. But meanwhile enforce it. Otherwise you have the Donald Trumps of the world constantly “negotiating” the law. By the way, the ruling classes in a democracy are the people. Often not for the best.
@@barryhaley7430 well at least you admit you don't favour democracy. You probably haven't given this topic a lot of thought, considering how simplistic your point of view is. There is no country where the people make laws freely. On average the people's choices are always incentivized if not constrained by governments and owners of the private media. Democracy requires proper information. Either way, some laws can be immoral to follow. You should break them. If yoy care about being moral, that is.
We have several underpasses and other areas where spraying is allowed here in my city (similar as in Freiburg), unfortnately most of the stuff sprayed here i would categorize as tagging and only very few street art.
There is a number of informal rules on where it’s ok to paint within the graffiti scene and I pretty much agree to those. It’s ok to get up (=the act of doing graffiti, getting one’s name up on the walls) on public property like bridges, tunnels, ugly walls etc. But most artist agree that you shouldn’t paint on private property, churches, memorials and cars. These rules are of cause not always followed, it depends on the writer’s personal view on these topics where he paints (but churches and memorials are extremely uncommon to receive graffiti). I personally don’t have anything against graffiti. It doesn’t hurt anyone if a grey wall receives a bit of color. What I don’t like is graffiti on actually pretty building, historical landmarks etc.
Hi Ashton. Controversial video for sure. Graffiti can be both art or vandalism. That really depends on the intention as well as the skill. Like you said at the start I also discern between tagging and graffiti. Especially when tagging is just a black illegible scrawl over another artist's work. That's when graffiti changes to vandalism. I have no problem with tags that are artfully designed, using varying shades of color, including shadows, depth, etc. If it is just scrawl of one gang over another to delineate the turf of one or the other street gang I consider it vandalism. There is however a point where ANY graffiti is vandalism: when it defaces and changes a classical architectural front of a building that was refurbished to look one specific way AND which requires a certain type of outer coat to retain its integrity. Certain spray paints can influence the structure of certain types of coating. However, if the owner of such a building declares it okay for graffiti to be applied, go ahead. Knock yourself out. It is NOT my prerogative to dictate one form of art to be better than the other. I personally may find one form of graffiti to be more artistically and visually pleasing yet that does not devalue others. In the case of the DB I DO understand why they are at graffiti sprayers. Many of their spray colors trap dust and dirt under the color. This allows rust and other debris to accumulate which can't be easily washed off, resulting in a measurably shorter lifetime of the rolling stock of locomotives and train cars. As such unless the train cars had been specifically prepared for graffiti beforehand THIS IS vandalism as it results in measurable damage to private property. The next problem is that among the basic taggers are also many "scratchers" who cut their 'tags' into windows, walls, or seats. That's when one artist of graffiti suddenly switches to vandalist in an instant. Here I draw the line between vandalism and art. Because scratches, especially in windows, seriously degrade the function of the object. That's why I have a problem with SOME of the outgrowths of the street art movement. When the potentially damaging form of street art makes the same claim to validity that sprayers make after they finished an hours long spray project I do have my reservations about those claims.
I think it's a great move to kind of legalize graffiti art and let the "graffiti community" regulate their form of expression by themselves. The annoying quick tags, made with waterproof marker pens, vanish more and more as the serious graffiti artists go after taggers if they damage or destroy their complex pieces of art. And as you showed in your introduction we today appreciate artist expression from ages ago and maybe some graffiti will be recovered again by civilisations to come in future millennia raised up on the ruins of our days. And perhaps it'll enjoy them.
i gues the answer to the question is... it depends how complex it is. Just writing a word on a wall is vandalism. When it comes to tagging it also depends on how much effort is put into it. Some of them look really interesting and intricate others are just too simple to be considered art. Real images and pictures created with graffiti are definitiely art and i really like them. the walls definitely look better with them than without them.
Your video makes the assumption that something can only be *either* vandalism *or* art. But those are orthogonal concepts. Something can be vandalism and art at the same time.
I like when people use graffiti to decorate more raw and ugly places in the cities, not so much when you kind of destroy historical buildings with it. Also safety should be considered, as painting in dangerous places sometimes happends. Also there is difference between rubbish and art, and sorry to say the painters don't always seem to know this difference. Not so much graffiti but tags used to be a big problem, but here they are much less today. Yet there was a scandal this summer about a vice mayor of Helsinki and former member of parliament painted graffiti in both illegal and dangerous place. I have not heard anybody to talk about graffiti for decades before the scandal. Some people were against the graffiti itself while others were offended by the danger they caused by doing graffiti where they did it. It was a grey concrete wall and there was previous graffiti on top of which they painted on. There was no real reason to remove that graffiti except the excample it was giving. Although on my opinion, middle-aged men painting walls might not be the greatest motivation for the youngsters to do the same.
honestly i still love tagging, obviously it sucks for taggers to cover other people's art and do it on certain types of private property, but i find a lot of beauty in the shitty stuff and love seeing tags around my city. it's cool getting to recognize certain tags and finding them in different places.
Why not invite a random person to tag your most valuable property - your body - with a tattoo! You have no right to decide what kinda tattoo, nor what it means - as by your own "rules" whatever shitty stuff that means, it has only to enjoy others, not necessarily yourself. C'mon, stay your ground, do it!
Much of the better Wall Art in Germany looks a modern extension of the traditional mural painting on the buildings in villages and towns that can be seen around the country. The good pieces enhance the neighbourhood but tagging on private property is just vandalism. Of course there are also some people just like their concrete grey.
In my home town of Jesenice (in Slovenia) we are currently attempting to make a district for graffiti artists to hone their craft and we hire them to paint overpasses and bland walls, the problem is that even though the art is beautiful taggers scrawling over it is a menace. Taggers should be fined, graffiti artists should be allowed to purchase permits to paint on certain surfaces, that way they would have a way to showcase their art and contribute to the local budget with their purchase of a permit.
Oh, you do legal street art in Jesenice? That’s cool. I can definitely imagine some places there that would benefit from that. 🙂 Will look out for it next time I am around, even if that may take some time. (Have remote family in town and in Žirovnica). Greetings from Germany! 😊
Im just gonna say. what you call ''graffiti artists'' are the exact same people who tag. Tags are graffiti and without tags there would be no nice pieces anywhere. Where do you suppose people get started with graffiti? Thats right its with a tag. Every single graffiti writer has their tag and will leave it where they see fit. A full blown piece is an artists tag but just made bigger, more complex and with more colours. Have you ever talked to someone who does graffiti and asked them about tagging? Another thing to consider is the difference between going out to paint a nice piece and going out to bomb. Two thing that are essential to the graffiti culture. Bombing is when you go out with the intention of putting your name up as much as possible without any consideration on what you damage while going out to do a piece takes some planning and sketching and finding the perfect spot in advance. You are talking about an area for graffiti but you at the same time are condeming the people who are creating it. Tagging is graffiti, its the one and same, the same people are doing both tags and pieces, its not there for you its there for the people doing it. Learn to read the writing and you will see..
@@zxc76v Well, I am not quite sure about the tagging in general, even if I do see your point and suppose you are right with respect to many artists. Here, the tags are mostly done by kids with permanent felt tips - many of whom never start to spraypaint. And those who do the nicer pieces start out in Workshops at school. All very civilised by now. But that‘s our small town - I suppose it‘s more like you write in many other cities, especially the larger ones. And I just take the liberty to like the pieces and to be not too happy about many tags, still. ;) (Btw. I also completely understand that our neighbours close their windows during my piano lessons, and usually I do so as well even in advance. However, I know that they like music when not played in rehearsal state. And as I said: I tend to understand that. I suppose that‘s about the same.)
It's always sad to see a nice colourful graffiti mural scrawled over by vandals just wanting to put their name on things. One is definetely art, whether it should be legal or not is up for debate, but it is art and many people agree it makes the city look better. The other is just plain vandalism it makes our streets and even real graffiti artists look worse because they just have to hamfistedly scrawl their tag on everything.
Gday Ashton, thank you for another interesting topic. As you have mentioned some graffiti is very impressive and adds an interesting dimension to some street scapes. Whereas, graffiti such as tags or scribble with intent of defacing walls, public transport or any other space or surface, is just ugly. Maybe life for them is ugly and this is how they release their negative energy. What ever their reason, it comes across as vandalism and antisocial behaviour. Graffiti definitely stands out where ever it appears and whether good or bad, will leave the viewer feeling either disgusted 🤮 confused 🤔or inspired. 🤩
I live in Berlin and also worked in the hotel business as a receptionist for years. I can confirm that Street Art became one of the capital's sights and just belongs to the face of the city. Tourism evolved around it and there are so many places where you can see lot's of great work. Ashton mentioned the East Side Gallery, but there are many places worth to see in Mitte at Hackescher Markt or some houses in Kreuzberg, Prenzlauer Berg just to name a few. I personally don't mind any of it not even the "bad" ones. I think it's one's own decision to look at it or decide to simply walk by. The only thing that actually botheres me is when the S-Bahn got sprayed and still is in service because than you can't look out the window while inside and just see a paint-smeared blur.
The legal graffiti area idea is an interesting one. It gives graffiti artists a place to create their art there are while protecting the rest of the urban area from something many people see as an eyesore at best. It has two problems. One is just that space is limited and eventually the number of legal graffiti areas will be filled. The other is that at least some artists might see the legal graffiti areas as not being in the spirit of graffiti culture.
I was just in Miami Florida and visited the Wynwood Walls a graffiti display. There is graffiti inside and outside the display. Some artist have much more talent than others. The Wynwood Walls display is fenced in and there is a fee $ to view the graffiti. I felt it was a violation of graffiti law to pay to see graffiti. I saw only the graffiti outside the display and was impressed by some of it. Several storefronts payed artist to graffiti their store in an attempt to fit in and look cool while trying to cash in on the popularity.
"Is graffiti art or is it vandalism" - I think it vastly depends on the quality and placement of the work. If it's a nice mural with a proper artistic vision, it's art, if it's just some monotone illegible name sprayed on an occupied house, it's vandalism.
In a part of southern Germany, where I used to live, there is a tunnel just for a bicycles and walkers but often someone would be there spray painting the walls. That would not be so bad if they didn’t use the kind of spray paint that I feel like when I bicycle through the tunnel that I almost became physically apfixated.
Graffiti and Street Art are art when they are artistic, no matter if we like them or if they are legal. When they are applied to property for which the artist doesn´t have permission to do so it is by definition of the german law vandalism. It´s in the most cases both: Art and Vandalism. The one doesn´t exclude the other. The §303 (2) could be, and is, even applied to chalk on a wall and a sticker on glas, depending on how difficult it is estaminated to remove these new changes of the appearance. In my city in Germany we don´t have many places where it´s allowed and our city runs zero tolerance politics towards it, thus we have more dirty and quick graffiti. But the beauty and free expression of humans always comes through eventually.. When I see how the image and public opinion about and of Graffiti have changed over the recent 30 years, it has come to flourishion a lot. Just 20 years ago it was hated and demonized generally. Nowadays it´s spread allover in any kind of pop culture, design and media. Aside from the lightyears better public opinion, there is still so much illegal Graffiti in Germany because there is still too much supression put up ages ago by the infamous german love for regulations, that naturally causes resistance. Where there are more opportunities to exercise this form of art legally there is more skillful and beautiful art to find. I could write a much more extensive comment, but I need to stop now. It´s interesting to have this video expressing your opinion. I never expected it, but it´s great.
I'm currently studying art and design at the master's level in Vancouver. At the same time, I am studying architecture on another campus. When I'm out and about with fellow students in Vancouver and we come across polarizing graffiti, friendships often split into irreconcilable parties of ernormous diversive opinions about whether graffiti is art or vandalism. And I bet some observers would be very amazed at how conservative some young art students can be. What is or isn't art is at least one thing: a topic that is often discussed very emotionally and can therefore quickly degenerate verbally. Personally, I can't decide on that topic. Art doesn't have to be a high technical/craftsmanship-aesthetic representation of content that arises from within an artist's soul. But art doesn't necessarily have to arise from an artist's inner conflicts of whatever causes and therefore is be reflected in bizarre dystopian scenarios. Art can be anything. For me, the intention is important, not how aesthetically conforming or unconventionally destructive art manifests itself for its beholders. As I said, the artist's intention is important to me. But not everyone understands this when looking at a work of art. Supposed if any beholder is willing to see graffiti as art, especially tag graffiti. In this case the following saying applies: Art is in the eye of the beholder(s).
Hello Ashton, that's a great video ! Actually you can see graffiti all over Germany. Sadly most of it is not really creative. I think it's good that the situation is keep in limbo a bit: it's kees at ping its status as a kind of protest and rebellion. However handling it too liberal could be seen as a violation of law not being taken serious by prosecution institution themselves, thus irrelevant and inviting just everybody to paint whatever they want on whichever surface they come across. BTW, faces of buildings being painted isn't anything new in Europe. Some epochs of art and architecture have provided many example of which quite a number are stil present, ie. baroque, rococo, ... or more folkloristic decorative painting eg in and near the Alps.
People who just write their names on something are idiots, but i must admit some Graffiti are real Artworks so much that i would be sad if someone removes them
Sometimes I guess, vandalism is art and art is vandalism. There is a great episode of one of the best ever TV series in germany. Der Tatortreiniger - Currywurst.
Tagging where I live in the US is associated with drugs and/or gangs. I really dislike the tagging. But actual street art - that’s created to make a statement or get viewers thinking is different. I like art for all and the idea of places where it’s legal (but has some rules) seems like a great compromise for the situation.
When I sent a picture of myself at the Mauerpark to my mom, she replied "That doesn't look like a good district, better not stay there for the night" 😂
My friend caught someone spray painting his property; the “artist” had his fingers broken. No more graffiti in the area after that. Harsh, but effective.
I had a good laugh when you described how some German cities regulate graffiti, ending with "very German". Indeed! I live in Berlin, and I can enjoy graffiti in many places. It makes the city more vibrant and reduces the depressing grey of many buildings and constructions. It is true; most of it is truly art. What I don't like is graffiti on historic buildings - that I consider vandalism, especially since most of it is just scribble and signatures. In my view, this is destroying the architectural art of the past. What I really hate is graffiti on bus and train windows, as I prefer to look out of them. I don't mind graffiti on the main body of the buses and trains. To be fair, some buses also have paid advertisements on the windows; I hate those too; though they are half transparent, they make the whole city look grey. I also wonder if regulating street art is destroying the spirit of its rebellious nature. When you showed the picture of the Berlin Wall, the western side with beautiful graffiti and the east side blank, my first thought was this illustrates perfectly the difference between a totalitarian system and a democracy. For the most part, the regulations were not created to acknowledge street art; graffiti was embraced, hoping that less unwanted graffiti would appear throughout the cities. If you want to avoid a house being randomly sprayed, have some street artists put some art on it first. By the way, the origin of the word "graffiti" is not Latin but Greek. The Romans adopted it from Greek. I really enjoyed that you picked this topic. Well-rounded research, as always!
If graffiti looks good, and when it is applied on an otherwise ugly plain surface, I think that it is art. However, when it is ugly, applied on an old building that looked good before with an expensive material, I think it is vandalism.
Some of the artwork is quite good. There are official places, such as at the Kriegsbrücke, where I have seen an artist during the day creating his art. This past summer there was some street work at the Hauptplatz, but instead of resetting the stones, it was filled in with asphalt, then an artist created a stream with a wooden boat, a stork and a wooden bridge. Additionally, three photo points were created for fotos to be taken, from different angles and points. Great idea. A cover for our local magazine had a woman sitting on the boat, giving it a 3D effect. A lot of tagging is busy nonsense.
If Grafitti were always beautiful murals nobody would object. Unfortunately, the majority of grafitti, at least here in Berlin, are ugly so-called "Tags" - indecipherable letters supposedly representing the person having sprayed them. It is too much, it is everywhere, and the punishments should work to reduce it altogether
Graffiti CAN be art, but practically anything can considered art now, so the better question is whether the graffiti beautifies a neighborhood or not. I live in Dresden, and there are a few areas such as the Kunsthofpassage in which the graffiti really does add character to certain areas (some of that "graffiti" was paid artwork with the intent to beautify and even that sometimes gets tagged over without consideration). I find, however, that the majority of graffiti defaces heritage architecture and otherwise beautiful neighborhoods and parks, and the problem just seems to be getting worse over the years, it seems. Datenschutz also makes it difficult for the government to do anything, since you can't just slap CCTVs everywhere to prevent it from happening in the first place.
Graffiti on private property without consent of the owner is nothing but vandalism. that said, there is beautiful graffiti - and if public property attracts graffity, it is usually a sign of failed city planning. a stencil graffity I once saw in a very bleak, concrete-dominated area: "Betonischer Garten" - that´s plain architectural criticism! and another one, which I discovered while it was actually starting to snow: "Schnee ist das Blut der Geister!"
Whether you call it graffiti, tagging, or art, if it is done on property without the owner's permission, it is vandalism. I've always defined graffiti as being painting things in places without permission. So if a place is set up to allow the painting, in my definition it is not graffiti. Though the definitions I looked up just say generalized painting places in view of the public. If someone had a picture painted on the side of their building by a graffiti artist and then someone else came along at night and painted that wall blue, that person would be wrong.
It depends, there is no clear answer. If the owner of the property is allowing it to paint on it and the Graffity isn't just "text messages", I think you can call it 'art'. Otherwise you only paint the wall with 'messages' and/or the owner doesn't allow it, I would call it vandalism.
I have nothing against graffiti if it's well done, if it's not just tagging and if it's not put on people's houses without permission. For example, if it's done in a public space (e.g. a public pedestrian tunnel) and has some artistic value, why not? A grey concrete wall, a red brick wall or painting everything in one boring color doesn't look any better than a nice artwork, does it? In the past, we had some problems with ugly tagging in the driveway of an apartment building I used to live in, and the solution was simple: we invited graffiti artists to paint the walls of the entrance. Yes, we even offered to pay them for the paint and they could choose the motif as long as it wasn't obviously offensive. We even painted over the two walls completely in advance and they were allowed to choose the colors, as this determines the base color of their canvas. One wall was red, the other blue and then they got started. The whole process took several weeks and in the end the red wall had a futuristic and rather abstract space motif and the blue one a more classic underwater motif with a mermaid and a giant octopus. This solved the tagging problem because other sprayers didn't want to paint over these images. On the one hand, it would have been disrespectful to the other sprayers and their tremendous work (it would have destroyed parts of the image and possibly even made it look as if the image was created by the taggers), and on the other hand, their tags would have been very difficult to see in the confusion of colors. And last but not least, the solution was cost-effective: instead of having to constantly remove tags and repaint the walls, it was a one-off cost and even after many years the paintings are still there and look as good as on day one.
Tagging is the need to cry out "I wuz here" to people who probably don't give a damn. On the other hand, the various expressions, illustrations and designs that take a great deal of work and skill can really improve an old and drab looking area. I don't think it would sit very well in very historic areas with older architecture, especially since we seek to preserve many of those, but also because the surface art is done on can impact the result, but there are surfaces that clearly are there just for practical purposes that don't have any particular artistic value, to which value can be added through street art, and I think there it deserves to be encouraged. And there are a lot of such places in the world. That said, it's all on a case to case basis and it is respectful to have people's permission just in general. Whether be it to use their art, or to create art on things their own.
All graffiti is art but all graffiti is also vandalism that is why the line between legal and illegal can not be drawn in graffiti itself. The line has to be drawn elsewhere, more precisely in where do we accept the "vandalism" and where do we not. Personally I find the idea of specific locations predesignated for legal artistic expression to be the most ideal solution for everyone and then I guess the heated debate should be about where those should be and not so much about is it art or not.
When it comes to Graffiti, I am a Nimby. The owner of the property decides what to do with it. Imagine a graffiti artist who bought a house and pointed it to hos liking and then I come and paint the house white. I am sure he would not be too happy. The moment it is asked to be done, it is not graffiti. It becomes street-art. Tag over it and that part is graffiti. And is graffiti art or vandalism? For me graffiti is the illegal part. Street-art is the legal part. If you like how it looks does not change that. Art can be ugly for some and legal things can look great (i.e. Banksy) for some. So for me it is not even a discussion. Graffiti is vandalism, because it is illegal that sometimes looks good. Street-art is art, because it is legal that sometimes looks bad.
"Is Graffiti Art, or is Graffiti Vandalism?" You're making a simple mistake here. You're assuming that Vandalism can not be Art and vice versa. The two are not mutually exclusive. Graffity is Art, but depending where it is used on whether or not the place it was made allows it, it can also be Vandalism.
This has become a lovely Sunday morning routine: Having my coffee while watching Type Ashton's newest video, so thanks for that! As to your question: Subjectively, there is no difficulty in answering it. Graffiti is a wonderful way to lend art and vibrancy (read 'life'!) to all those depressing concrete walls of tunnels, bridges etc. Nowhere better to be experienced than by the two sides of the Wall as shown in your video. But it hurts to see a fine old building defaced by it, especially, of course, when it's primitive scrawling of some nonsense, but also in general. The usual type of Graffiti is very modern, edgy, aggressive - it doesn't fit with a building from the 1900s any more than a hip hop dancer would fit into the Barock castle of Ludwigsburg. I expect the artists would argue they didn't mean it to fit in, but that's where they would be wrong. They have the right to express themselves via their art - but so did those who created those older buildings. On an objective level, however, it is awfully difficult to find a rule that fits all, because who is going to decide where Graffiti would enrich the urban landscape and where it wouldn't?
About those concrete abberations, two wrongs (poor architecture superimposed by spray can vandalism) do not make a right. And nice architecture does not make sprayers cease and desist either. Besides, the theory behind brutalism is "decoration is crime" in the first place. I would wager that this includes amateur ad-hoc "decoration" ... ;-)
![Kumamoto Masters Japan 2024 | Gregoria Mariska Tunjung (INA) [5] vs. Akane Yamaguchi (JPN) [2] | F](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EIjZybhsWqA/mqdefault.jpg)
I was out with my parents one day, eating at a restaurant in my town and afterwards going for a little Verdauungsspaziergang, when I figured "Hey, let's show my dad (he's in his 70's) the graffitti and murals in the area, just to see what happens." And we went around to my favourite spots, under the overpass, along the factory wall and to the WWII air raid bunker. My dad looked at all of them, criticizing, evaluating, interpreting...things you do with art and paintings. But he didn't seem overly enthused.
*_YEARS_* later, completely out of the blue, he asks me if that one mural under the bridge is still there and if we can do another tour. So I guess it must've been art.
😄
A certain kind of art without any doubt - but the point is: it was generated unquestionably on surfaces the owners don't agree with . . .
@@kgspollux6998 Not always. Some are payed for. some just get the ok after showing fotos of their art.
A school in my Swabian hometown has had an area where it is legal to spray for about two decades now and that has improved the look of the city by a lot. Graffiti here is never destructive and only used to improve, in my opinion, ugly areas, which shows. I don’t think a single graffiti had to be removed in the last 10 years.
If the graffiti is destroying the intended purpose of the "canvas" I consider it vandalism when it comes to public property. A concrete bridge, an underpass, a power sub station etc can hardly deserve fantastic art more. But public (well, commissioned I guess) art, shop windows, street signs and similar have a purpose that is meddled with when graffiti is applied. The original artists intention is changed, the function of the window destroyed, the signs message compromised usw.
On privately owned property I think it's up to the owner to decide. That's where I stand today. So I smile when I see freight train wagons rolling by with art on them but I'm a lot more annoyed by passenger trains with spray paint all over the windows. And no, I can't wrap my head around the annoying tagging.
Graffiti "artists" smearing their tasteless, bland tag over an elaborate and beautiful piece of graffiti art (even when the latter is also illegal), is the height of disrespect and narcissism.
Also not all graffiti "artists" are artists. Some do a terrible job. Also tagging is not graffiti. And here in Los Angeles we have a lot more tagging than graffiti.
@@theuncalledfor I agree 100%
If you think that it is up to the owner to decide, then why would you smile at art on freight trains. I can't imagine that any freight train owners would want it on their cars.
@@Biga101011
For freight trains, it doesn't matter. They don't have windows, and they're usually considered ugly anyway. Many of them don't even have brand/company name labels on them, either, so they have no advertisement value. And if they had, well, screw advertising anyway, the world is such a worse place for having so many ads in it.
Freight trains aren't really privately owned, either. They tend to belong to companies, not individuals, and while that is often considered to be "private", as opposed to public, it's not the same as, say, a house that someone lives in (which is probably what OP meant by private property). Really, commercial/business-owned property should be separated from truly private/individual-owned property.
Great video as always! I have just a very minor and, in the context of the video, very inconsequential correction: In Germany, Graffiti is not punishable under § 303 I StGB, since the substance of the building is not changed or damaged. Because of that, § 303 II StGB was introduced which punishes substantially and permanently changing the appearence of someones property in order to prosecute street artists.
about 10 years ago my city allowed spraying and invited to graffiti for some underground street crossings which otherwise just had gray concrete walls. I think this was a big gain for everyone. recently the city overpained it gray. now it looks quite sad again but I hope a new generation of graffiti artists will fix that soon.
I have always owned dogs. Tagging is just what my male dogs do at every corner and has just about the same value as any puddle on the tarmac. And graffiti over train windows is just vandalism. But when an artist has the ability and the intention to make the city more beautiful or more interesting, I'm all for it.
Blank walls are vandalism to creative souls.
Again, great research - work. I really love graffiti if it's done well and expresses the thoughts and feelings of the artist. But, what I absolutely don't like, is people just spraying their tag anywhere they like to, these guys remind of a dog that marks his territory. Even in my small city of 50k people, we have various places for graffity art.
I see it practically. Some graffitis are really art and other graffitis creates a good amount of sales volume for corporations and jobs. The point for me is, a good graffiti is way better than a grey wall.
Hi Ashton, That was another fascinating video with food for thought.
There is another interesting aspect here in Germany that needs to be addressed in this context: "Kunst am Bau", preferably translated as "Percent for Art". This is a concept for public buildings that was developed around 1919 in the Weimar Republic and aimed to subsidise local artists in need with a percentage of the building sum. This concept still exists at state level. But it had its pitfalls: I remember a school from the 1960s that was to be renovated. This included the façade, which was decorated with a "work of art" from that period.
The heirs then issued a temporary injunction against the measure in a flash, because the artwork would have been destroyed and the ensemble, art and façade, ruined.
German copyright law is very tricky in this context. As the rights holder, you can grant rights of use, for a fee, of course. However, this does not automatically include the right to copy, reproduce, modify or even destroy.
As far as graffiti is concerned, things get interesting when, for example, Banksy sprays on a worthless ruin and his work is categorised as being worth millions. In terms of property law, this should be unproblematic: the spray mist can be defined as a thing and, as a thing, it is firmly attached to the building and has therefore become the property of the owner of the ruin. Under copyright law, however, the situation could be quite different.
These thoughts should be given special consideration in Berlin - if only to avoid claims for damages.
I like the traditional art on buildings in Bavaria, the farming scenes, flowers etc
I'm also on the side of graffiti being art, tagging aside. It's always a pleasure to see more people being creative with street, buildings and other parts of cities!
Simple tags are definitely a nuisance... the big question is at what point a tag becomes art. And I would definitely suggests artists to seek permission first.
Would you like to get up one day to find your house carrying a new, colorful message you might not even support? --> crime.
If an artist has the permission (or the mandate from the owner) to change the building or structure to artwork --> art.
But, Germany would not be Germany if there wouldn't be laws and regulations, even as an owner you can get in trouble if you decided to do so.
In Regensburg, the so-called "Bunte Haus" (pictures can be found in Google easily) caused some discussion after the city found the house “too different”. The owner was requested to change the house to "uncolored" again and he even was prepared to take the risk of a court case, which was reported in the press until the city finally gave up. There is now a second house of this type in Regensburg.
Here in Sioux City, Iowa, U.S there are areas in which either the city or the owner has put major graffiti art on buildings and walls, the city itself for a few years now has said yes to having to what is known to Alleyway Art in which the city has a weekend in which artist come in and put drawings anywhere in any Alley and it has become so popular that other types of artist, such as painters, photographers, woodworkers, and others, come and set up a table on the street to try and sell their stuff. There use to be a time during the summer in which the city just did 1 art get together called Art Splash, but now during the summer, thanks to Alleyway Art, it now has 2 Art public get togethers, and both of them last up to 3 days.
Thanks again for an interesting and thoughtful video!
You may have heard about the Happy Go Lucky Hostel in Charlottenburg, at the Stuttgarter Platz. This facade painting by Irishman Dom Browne has become an international landmark of Berlin graffiti, much photographed and best visible from the S-Bahn that passes nearby. Apparently, the local administration was successful in suing the owner over the "screamingly colourful" street art which, in their opinion, disturbs the view of another facade that is protected under the Denkmalschutz act. Mind you, architecture of that Gründerzeit kind (late 19th-century) is abundant all over the city. I really felt ashamed of my home town.
As to your question, I can tolerate, and even like, street art, but dislike tagging. It's just ugly. When there is some structural challenge in the art, when it comes across as unique and somehow related to its sorroundings, and appears not overly shticky, then it speaks to me.
There was a blank 10*10 meter wall in my neighborhood in Amsterdam that kept getting tagged, so they commissioned an artist to just make the entire wall an art piece. There's one less boring blank (or ugly tagged) wall and one more big art piece making the neighborhood more beautiful. Win-win situation and it hasn't been tagged since.
Well, it is always difficult to draw a line. As you mentioned, for me on one end, the dispicable act, is the mindless tagging and on the other the more elaborate graffitis which exist in the environment they have been planted into. And like a piece of art a graffiti needs to be separated from other "artist's" work or in this setting, misdeeds. And the complete coverage of every spot of vertical area I really loathe. Because it shows a disfunctional society and entices people to do other really bad things.
I am reminded of the park in New York which had been a dangerous corner because all the plants and everything was just rotten. Once a citizen's group took care of the area and kept it tidy and neat all the bad boys (drug dealers and what-have-you) went away. The crime rate sank drastically.
That example shows clearly that neglected areas are a breeding ground of crime and social decay. And those graffiti, once they take up too much space, indicate that the society has given up on that place. And that leads to lawlessness because everybody sees clearly he can do whatever he wants at that area. Everything goes.
So there is not only an estethic aspect but also a sociological one. Too much graffiti shows a society falling apart.
When I was in Berlin the last time (2015) all the green spaces in parks were unkempt due to Berlin having no money. And I definitely felt being in the wrong place. No more in Germany but in a kind of slum.
This video shows the creative and ingenious graffiti I wouldn't mind seeing.
ruclips.net/video/4RJR-SNwWxs/видео.htmlsi=FdpDp-mhEzL8_G8H
- Street art was confirmed by the owner of the property.
- Graffiti is destructive and "ha-ha".
- Both often times still don't fit in the overall street design. Still allowing it, similar to individualistic houses, eventually destroy the aestetic street.
- Street art was strong in Berlin, because the East has shit houses, designs til today and large parts of the West similarily, because they had to save and are poor. So, Street art then helps lifting things up, but also had to be regulated and confirmed by traditionalists, because otherwise you just have a lot of Street art being used similarily to Graffiti without being embedded.
- Graffiti is still used, also opon Street art, destructively.
Halle (Saale) has its own street art gallery, called "Freiraumgalerie"- but it is not a museum with entrance fees like in Amsterdam, but a whole area with more than 70 gigantic murals, that cover whole house walls. There are offered guided tours. Best thing, its located right next to the main railway station, so it is easy to find and access for tourits and visitors. Additionally, the passenger tunnels around the station are also covered in graffiti art, that was deliberately ordered by the Deutsche Bahn to enhance the beauty of the surroundings.
Here in my city in Denmark. Taastrup, we have plenty of legal grafitti zones. Where artists are free to do their art. We are also the home place for the biggest graffiti group in Denmark MOA, (monsters of art).
Just make it legal in some places, and the actually talented people will show up and make boring tunnels and underpasses into beautiful spectacles or modern art styles.
Many artists are not going to tag on a wall that is actually beautiful, out of respect. But often it is about show off. And an underpass is the least showy thing you can do. Painting a full train cart between two stations, is one of the most difficult, dangerous and high prestige targets. Because of the technical execution required.
In Shanghai you can go to university street 大学路 and fine full facade graffiti. It is beautiful.
Quite often owners engage street-art-artists to paint a really good graffity onto their walls to get rid of tagging on the same wall. Works due to the graffitiy-ethics-code not to spray over an existing high-quality graffitiy, Ashton explained, My company just did this last year.
I like street art but I don't condone tagging. And yup, ideally with permission. A relative of mine used to do street art and he was actually pretty successfully asking home owners for their permission to use certain walls. Because street art and murals can also be protection against vandalism as taggers will normally not encroach onto bigger works of street art.
And I especially love street art that encompasses other things that are around. There is some seriously funny street art out there.
And by far my favourite piece by Banksy to this day is the one where he turned a wall completely covered in tags into a stained-glass church window.. 🥰
We have been retired since the beginning of the new century. Our home base is here in the USA. Our daughter is in the U.S. Navy and we have traveled to some of her base locations in the U.S. and abroad. We also traveled a lot when we were working - mostly in the U.S. which has a lot to see. We have been to Asia, Europe, and Australia - and she has been to Costa Rica and the Carribean.
Art should only be painted on the Artist’s property. Not public property
My experience with graffiti has been in NY and NJ. I was going to college in NYC when a graffiti boom hit the city and it was a blight on the city, especially on the subway system. I won't comment on Germany's experience since their history is so different.
There are examples where local authorities even ordered local spraying artists to paint public buildings. Like the underground station "Rennweg" in Nuremberg in 1993.
It's not either one or the other. It can be art, that's up to everyone to decide on their own. But it's always vandalism if it violates property rights of someone else including public property.
Interesting topic. There's some great art on german walls. In my town an elementary school has a large legal graffiti. The name and phone number of the artist is included so one could call him and ask him to paint one's garage door (or whatever).
Our company even has an "official graffiti artist" as a tennant.
As Ashton mentioned, there are some pretty good artists out there who should be promoted.
Simple tagging? Um, not my idea of art. At least leave a message.
i leave messages, its anti advertising or positive propaganda i like to call it
A number of early 80s movies were pretty important in bringing hip hop culture to Germany. Especially check out Beat Street (1984). Its wiki page explains its role to German hip hop in the legacy section. It's also a pretty good movie just on its own. Other examples are Wild Style (1983) and Style Wars (1983). Those movies depicted the New York scene. Another reason why Germany is more influence by that particular scene. (At least in regards to graffiti.)
Ha. Graffiti going from the avant-garde anti-establishment to mainstream acceptance on some level is like moms accompanying their kids when they hang out at the mall.
It's not my personal go-to art form at all, but the less slapdash, more intentional stuff really is nice. I couldn't help but notice that where there was complete coverage of chaotic, slapdash, self-serving bits and pieces, a more intentional and thought out piece on top looked really nice.
Yes, there is the difference between tagging and art.
An artist may ask the owner of the wall, if not allowed in advance, if he may put a picture there. Everyone else is just vandalizing and should pay for removal. Easy in case of tagging.
In my hometown of Saarbrücken there is a long concrete wall that seperates the river from the highway. It is legal to spray graffiti there and 99% of it is street art and not "vandalism". It is visible from the Park at the other side of the river and it's just part of the city! The people like it too
I live near the city of Heerlen in the south east of the Netherlands, very close to the German city of Aachen.
Heerlen has become one of the hotspots for street art and culture in the Netherlands.
There is a yearly break dance event and the city council has become very liberal concerning murals as long as they are created in designated spots or on private property with consent of the owner.
30m high blind walls of a row of high rise apartments have been adorned with gigantic pieces, a large mural depicting the towns history as a coal mining town was included in the design of the new railway station and shopping centre.
Even closer to home under a couple of highway underpasses legal graffiti makes them look not as dark and gloomy as the naked concrete was.
I consider this as an art form which can turn otherwise not to welcoming places in something nice.
But graffiti, especially tagging, which is made without permission of the owner is always vandalising someone's property as far as I see it.
Not what I was "expecting" but on reflection it makes so much sense for you to cover this..
Absolutely love street art whether it be graffiti, murals, music, dance etc...
Street art is cool, tagging is not. And spraying at places where the owners don't want it is vandalism.
Depends. Tags can be street art too. Some are really unique and creative.
@@lazrseagull54 And sometimes they're just "TONGLAND" in Dulux Pure Brilliant White painted on a wall with a 4" brush.
@@lazrseagull54I'd reward such tag "artists" in a court with 3 months of tag & graffiti cleaning labour... That would work well with the need to remove illegal graffiti and reduce the costs of overall damage. As well as demotivating vandals. Let's not forget, that 99+% of them are not artists, just people wanting to make a watsup picture or brag about vandalizing something... They're "work" has zero value of any kind, let alone as art. I'm quite sure that for really talented artists there's enough "surface sponsors" to keep them busy.
Here here!
@lazrseagull54 well all know what kind of tagging people are talking about.... the random crappy ones....need not apply 😂
Interesting topic, but I would argue that painting/graffiti on private property or someone else's wall is the same as if I would put graffiti on another person's car without permission and call it art. This would be unheard of and who ever did it would have to pay for all the damages. I'm all for street art and freedom of expression as long as it is on public property where this is allowed and whoever does it finances the act and the cleaning process
I think this week you somehow missed the mark concerning the clear distinction between graffity as art and graffity as "tagging" to just vandalize... as you said: the German state and house owners spent hundreds millions of euro each year to remove illegal graffity. Yes, it is an artform and there is legal graffity, there are even a lot of walls where you can legally do your graffity. And there is a clear distinction between "artwork graffity" and just tagging your bullshit on any house wall - clearly not art, just damaging other peoples property. 99% of the graffity you see in Berlin is illegal graffity and has absolutely no artistic value.
I myself spend around 100 euro and 2 days / year to remove some vandalization of our house wall... stupid shit like random letters, political statements like "free gaza" or "fuck for worldpeace" or whatever... clearly not art at all. Most neighbouring houses have basically given up and just dont remove it anymore and their walls look like shit. Basically the less you remove it, the more they keep tagging. One house in our street hired some graffity artists to place a large mural artwork graffity on their house to inhibit others from vandalizing with their "tagging" - but even that didnt work, they just tag over the artwork....
So to summarize: If there is consent by the owner of a house and it is artwork, sure, go ahead. If it is just tagging (to me this is like a dog marking territory with peeing everywhere) it is vandalizing and should be very clearly punished. And sadly, that does not happen.
I know someone in southern Germany as well that keeps having the wall or the garage of her small house spread with graffiti that she doesn’t want and she keeps having to spend money on paint and her time of painting over it it’s happened at , least twice or more.
Good morning Ashton! I'm loving your videos!!! I have an idea for you- is there a difference between the German fairy tales and the one's we grow up hearing our parents read to us as kids in the states?
Reason being, we just had a big World Premiere performance last night - the choreographer used the original story of 'The Stolen Veil', which many say was the inspiration for the ballet 'Swan Lake'. I've been doing research on it while assisting the choreographer and see the original fairy tales here are quite dark. Disney lightened up the characters as well. I find this intriguing. Is it character building to our little people? Does it instil some sort of fear in one's early years?
Lovely Holiday season to you all !!!!!
The “fairy tales” that the brothers Grimm collected were not intended for children. They were folk stories told by adults for adults. They are all full of metaphors and generally quite allegorical. They stem from a time when it was unwise or even unhealthy to say out loud what you thought about your government and other powers that be. So people put criticism into these stories. You can be sure that “Little red riding hood” (which should actually be translated as “little red cap”, which makes more sense) is not about an encounter with the species canis lupus (wolf).
@@Aine197 There's a lot of sex hidden in those stories, always being talked around, implied, replaced with allegories, what have you, but if you look in the origins, it's there. Sometimes one of those has roots in one of Germany's neighbors, and you can find there (or the experts found) a much rawer version of the story.
Of course, they're not _all_ about sex, there are other motifs as well. Sometimes, they're about poverty, for example. The Star Money and The Little Match Girl have two very different tales - in one, the little girl gets rich, and in the other, she freezes to death. Greed is also a pretty common theme. And so on.
I‘m not going to be a Disney basher, but there has been a tendency to „lighten up“ stuff that is otherwise very dark. The worst travesty in this sense (that I‘m aware of) was their animated film of „The Hunchback of Notre Dame“ and its happy end for the three main characters. Definitely NOT what Victor Hugo wrote!!
Here in Münster, someone had the bright idea to use the fact that graffiti isn't usually painted over good-looking graffiti. You know these gray boxes on the sides of streets? The most common kind of them have been painted with graffiti-like pictures (several different themes) all over the city. And as far as I've seen, ever since, they haven't been vandalized. They also have two legal graffiti places - I've never been there, so no idea how well that works.
The closer I drive to the Rhein from my town the more internet boxes I see painted red and black. No words, no logos, just half red, half black. It just happened recently, and it took me a while to figure out what they mean. It's a soccer team. But my town has graffiti-like art showing up on those internet boxes, which is really pretty and obviously commissioned.
I do like colorful walls with murals more than black concrete or single colors. I think it is a great idea to give people public space for their craft - it is their hobby and they should not be driving into criminality to practice it and to be an artist that is hired for a job, you need to practice.
In my city there are several areas where you can spray and some with established rules - e.g. "Anybody can spray, but their work has to be better than the one they replaced" - and the scene is watching and seeking out vandals - as it is about fame recognition.
From a UK point of view. I like street art, but only in locations which are authorised, the next issue should councils be required to authorise an area for street art? On Private property with the owners permission again no issues. But then without permission and especially tagging no this is just a crime against property and must be stopped. Transport for London - will not let a train enter service with graffiti on the vehicle, it is a zero tolerance approach.
Interesting side note. In the separated Berlin, the wall was technically built on the GDR side. So, the artists from the West were technically working on GDR state ground, which hindered west german Police to take actions against the artists.
Yes, indeed! The GDR was careful to place the wall just inside the actual border so that it was entirely on their territory, making the FRG helpless as far as demanding its removal.
@@michaelmedlinger6399 - as building a wall on foreign ground was even to foreign for the Politbüro. And no, the FRG haven’t had a say anyway as these events happened in Allied-controlled West-Berlin.
Ah, remember Kennedy saying as it was yesterday: _"Ich bin ein Krapfen!"_
@@agn855 Ah, yes, true, of course. It's been so long that I no longer thought about West Berlin not being a part of the FRG officially.
As someone who doesn't much care for my physical surroundings (I'm one that doesn't have pictures up in home, place is usually messy cos I'm not really paying attention, there's little "aesthetic" care taken anywhere in pysical realm), I do like "good" graffiti, it's the "tagging" I don't care for, but, don't really care if it's there.
Actual "art" is cool, so long as it's in-keeping with the surroundings.
When I was in 7th or 8th grade, We got permission from the owner of a house in the city center to Paint a giant Mural as an art project, organizied by our art-teacher.
So for a weak, instead of going to school we did this mural for 6 hours a day, and IIRC it was a pretty big deal in the city when finished for a while, with press and the mayor and everything.
Probably gone by now, that was 25 years ago.
My hometown started an annual street art festival which is a whole week long. During that time they have different projects going on, which are mostly big murals. There are also vernisages and showings of movies that match the theme. Last year, i think we had international artists here. Our tourism board offers guided street art tours.
Unless the “artist” owns or has permission of the property owner, it’s vandalism!
And where do you draw the line, no pun intended, if it’s acceptable for these vandals to spray paint my home, why not my car?
@@Rubicola174 That’s today’s major problem. People think laws are negotiable. I’ll pick and choose which ones I will obey. This attitude leads to the increasing chaos the west is experiencing.
@@barryhaley7430 laws must indeed be negotiable. that's the point of democracy. people are never the problem, ruling classes are.
@@YQN2149 Laws should never be negotiable. They should always apply. If you don’t like the law, change it. But meanwhile enforce it. Otherwise you have the Donald Trumps of the world constantly “negotiating” the law.
By the way, the ruling classes in a democracy are the people. Often not for the best.
@@barryhaley7430 well at least you admit you don't favour democracy. You probably haven't given this topic a lot of thought, considering how simplistic your point of view is. There is no country where the people make laws freely. On average the people's choices are always incentivized if not constrained by governments and owners of the private media. Democracy requires proper information.
Either way, some laws can be immoral to follow. You should break them. If yoy care about being moral, that is.
if you can put an ad on it you can put a tag on it
We have several underpasses and other areas where spraying is allowed here in my city (similar as in Freiburg), unfortnately most of the stuff sprayed here i would categorize as tagging and only very few street art.
There is a number of informal rules on where it’s ok to paint within the graffiti scene and I pretty much agree to those. It’s ok to get up (=the act of doing graffiti, getting one’s name up on the walls) on public property like bridges, tunnels, ugly walls etc. But most artist agree that you shouldn’t paint on private property, churches, memorials and cars. These rules are of cause not always followed, it depends on the writer’s personal view on these topics where he paints (but churches and memorials are extremely uncommon to receive graffiti).
I personally don’t have anything against graffiti. It doesn’t hurt anyone if a grey wall receives a bit of color. What I don’t like is graffiti on actually pretty building, historical landmarks etc.
I love street art! I really do enjoy it and there are some true pieces of art out there that create those "wow-moments" 😊
Hi Ashton. Controversial video for sure.
Graffiti can be both art or vandalism. That really depends on the intention as well as the skill.
Like you said at the start I also discern between tagging and graffiti. Especially when tagging is just a black illegible scrawl over another artist's work. That's when graffiti changes to vandalism.
I have no problem with tags that are artfully designed, using varying shades of color, including shadows, depth, etc. If it is just scrawl of one gang over another to delineate the turf of one or the other street gang I consider it vandalism.
There is however a point where ANY graffiti is vandalism: when it defaces and changes a classical architectural front of a building that was refurbished to look one specific way AND which requires a certain type of outer coat to retain its integrity. Certain spray paints can influence the structure of certain types of coating.
However, if the owner of such a building declares it okay for graffiti to be applied, go ahead. Knock yourself out. It is NOT my prerogative to dictate one form of art to be better than the other.
I personally may find one form of graffiti to be more artistically and visually pleasing yet that does not devalue others.
In the case of the DB I DO understand why they are at graffiti sprayers. Many of their spray colors trap dust and dirt under the color. This allows rust and other debris to accumulate which can't be easily washed off, resulting in a measurably shorter lifetime of the rolling stock of locomotives and train cars. As such unless the train cars had been specifically prepared for graffiti beforehand THIS IS vandalism as it results in measurable damage to private property.
The next problem is that among the basic taggers are also many "scratchers" who cut their 'tags' into windows, walls, or seats. That's when one artist of graffiti suddenly switches to vandalist in an instant. Here I draw the line between vandalism and art. Because scratches, especially in windows, seriously degrade the function of the object.
That's why I have a problem with SOME of the outgrowths of the street art movement. When the potentially damaging form of street art makes the same claim to validity that sprayers make after they finished an hours long spray project I do have my reservations about those claims.
I think it's a great move to kind of legalize graffiti art and let the "graffiti community" regulate their form of expression by themselves. The annoying quick tags, made with waterproof marker pens, vanish more and more as the serious graffiti artists go after taggers if they damage or destroy their complex pieces of art. And as you showed in your introduction we today appreciate artist expression from ages ago and maybe some graffiti will be recovered again by civilisations to come in future millennia raised up on the ruins of our days. And perhaps it'll enjoy them.
by law of averages it probly be a willy in a school book 🤣🤣
i gues the answer to the question is... it depends how complex it is. Just writing a word on a wall is vandalism. When it comes to tagging it also depends on how much effort is put into it. Some of them look really interesting and intricate others are just too simple to be considered art. Real images and pictures created with graffiti are definitiely art and i really like them. the walls definitely look better with them than without them.
Interesting aspect: Art is defined by length.
@@maraboo72 I think they meant not length (of what?), but artistic effort.
Your video makes the assumption that something can only be *either* vandalism *or* art. But those are orthogonal concepts. Something can be vandalism and art at the same time.
I like when people use graffiti to decorate more raw and ugly places in the cities, not so much when you kind of destroy historical buildings with it. Also safety should be considered, as painting in dangerous places sometimes happends. Also there is difference between rubbish and art, and sorry to say the painters don't always seem to know this difference. Not so much graffiti but tags used to be a big problem, but here they are much less today.
Yet there was a scandal this summer about a vice mayor of Helsinki and former member of parliament painted graffiti in both illegal and dangerous place. I have not heard anybody to talk about graffiti for decades before the scandal. Some people were against the graffiti itself while others were offended by the danger they caused by doing graffiti where they did it. It was a grey concrete wall and there was previous graffiti on top of which they painted on. There was no real reason to remove that graffiti except the excample it was giving. Although on my opinion, middle-aged men painting walls might not be the greatest motivation for the youngsters to do the same.
honestly i still love tagging, obviously it sucks for taggers to cover other people's art and do it on certain types of private property, but i find a lot of beauty in the shitty stuff and love seeing tags around my city. it's cool getting to recognize certain tags and finding them in different places.
Why not invite a random person to tag your most valuable property - your body - with a tattoo! You have no right to decide what kinda tattoo, nor what it means - as by your own "rules" whatever shitty stuff that means, it has only to enjoy others, not necessarily yourself.
C'mon, stay your ground, do it!
@@agn855 ok
Much of the better Wall Art in Germany looks a modern extension of the traditional mural painting on the buildings in villages and towns that can be seen around the country. The good pieces enhance the neighbourhood but tagging on private property is just vandalism. Of course there are also some people just like their concrete grey.
In my home town of Jesenice (in Slovenia) we are currently attempting to make a district for graffiti artists to hone their craft and we hire them to paint overpasses and bland walls, the problem is that even though the art is beautiful taggers scrawling over it is a menace.
Taggers should be fined, graffiti artists should be allowed to purchase permits to paint on certain surfaces, that way they would have a way to showcase their art and contribute to the local budget with their purchase of a permit.
Oh, you do legal street art in Jesenice?
That’s cool. I can definitely imagine some places there that would benefit from that. 🙂
Will look out for it next time I am around, even if that may take some time. (Have remote family in town and in Žirovnica). Greetings from Germany! 😊
@@marge2548 It's supposed to be set up near Stara Sava, near the museum. If you go through Jesenice on the main street, you'll se most of it.
@@JMS-2111 Thank you very much! 🙂
Im just gonna say. what you call ''graffiti artists'' are the exact same people who tag. Tags are graffiti and without tags there would be no nice pieces anywhere. Where do you suppose people get started with graffiti? Thats right its with a tag. Every single graffiti writer has their tag and will leave it where they see fit. A full blown piece is an artists tag but just made bigger, more complex and with more colours. Have you ever talked to someone who does graffiti and asked them about tagging?
Another thing to consider is the difference between going out to paint a nice piece and going out to bomb. Two thing that are essential to the graffiti culture. Bombing is when you go out with the intention of putting your name up as much as possible without any consideration on what you damage while going out to do a piece takes some planning and sketching and finding the perfect spot in advance.
You are talking about an area for graffiti but you at the same time are condeming the people who are creating it. Tagging is graffiti, its the one and same, the same people are doing both tags and pieces, its not there for you its there for the people doing it. Learn to read the writing and you will see..
@@zxc76v Well, I am not quite sure about the tagging in general, even if I do see your point and suppose you are right with respect to many artists.
Here, the tags are mostly done by kids with permanent felt tips - many of whom never start to spraypaint.
And those who do the nicer pieces start out in Workshops at school.
All very civilised by now.
But that‘s our small town - I suppose it‘s more like you write in many other cities, especially the larger ones.
And I just take the liberty to like the pieces and to be not too happy about many tags, still. ;)
(Btw. I also completely understand that our neighbours close their windows during my piano lessons, and usually I do so as well even in advance. However, I know that they like music when not played in rehearsal state. And as I said: I tend to understand that. I suppose that‘s about the same.)
It's always sad to see a nice colourful graffiti mural scrawled over by vandals just wanting to put their name on things.
One is definetely art, whether it should be legal or not is up for debate, but it is art and many people agree it makes the city look better. The other is just plain vandalism it makes our streets and even real graffiti artists look worse because they just have to hamfistedly scrawl their tag on everything.
Gday Ashton, thank you for another interesting topic.
As you have mentioned some graffiti is very impressive and adds an interesting dimension to some street scapes.
Whereas, graffiti such as tags or scribble with intent of defacing walls, public transport or any other space or surface, is just ugly. Maybe life for them is ugly and this is how they release their negative energy. What ever their reason, it comes across as vandalism and antisocial behaviour.
Graffiti definitely stands out where ever it appears and whether good or bad, will leave the viewer feeling either disgusted 🤮 confused 🤔or inspired. 🤩
Simple: the art beginns where the owner of the wall allows it
I live in Berlin and also worked in the hotel business as a receptionist for years. I can confirm that Street Art became one of the capital's sights and just belongs to the face of the city. Tourism evolved around it and there are so many places where you can see lot's of great work. Ashton mentioned the East Side Gallery, but there are many places worth to see in Mitte at Hackescher Markt or some houses in Kreuzberg, Prenzlauer Berg just to name a few. I personally don't mind any of it not even the "bad" ones. I think it's one's own decision to look at it or decide to simply walk by. The only thing that actually botheres me is when the S-Bahn got sprayed and still is in service because than you can't look out the window while inside and just see a paint-smeared blur.
The legal graffiti area idea is an interesting one. It gives graffiti artists a place to create their art there are while protecting the rest of the urban area from something many people see as an eyesore at best. It has two problems. One is just that space is limited and eventually the number of legal graffiti areas will be filled. The other is that at least some artists might see the legal graffiti areas as not being in the spirit of graffiti culture.
I was just in Miami Florida and visited the Wynwood Walls a graffiti display. There is graffiti inside and outside the display. Some artist have much more talent than others. The Wynwood Walls display is fenced in and there is a fee $ to view the graffiti. I felt it was a violation of graffiti law to pay to see graffiti. I saw only the graffiti outside the display and was impressed by some of it. Several storefronts payed artist to graffiti their store in an attempt to fit in and look cool while trying to cash in on the popularity.
"Is graffiti art or is it vandalism" - I think it vastly depends on the quality and placement of the work. If it's a nice mural with a proper artistic vision, it's art, if it's just some monotone illegible name sprayed on an occupied house, it's vandalism.
Unless the “artist” owns the property or has permission from the owner it’s vandalism!
In a part of southern Germany, where I used to live, there is a tunnel just for a bicycles and walkers but often someone would be there spray painting the walls. That would not be so bad if they didn’t use the kind of spray paint that I feel like when I bicycle through the tunnel that I almost became physically apfixated.
I feel enlightened on a gloomy sunday. Thank you, Ashton!
Just as allowing it on places should be honored, three should also be respect of sites where it isn't welcomed.
That's often lacking.
Graffiti and Street Art are art when they are artistic, no matter if we like them or if they are legal. When they are applied to property for which the artist doesn´t have permission to do so it is by definition of the german law vandalism. It´s in the most cases both: Art and Vandalism. The one doesn´t exclude the other.
The §303 (2) could be, and is, even applied to chalk on a wall and a sticker on glas, depending on how difficult it is estaminated to remove these new changes of the appearance.
In my city in Germany we don´t have many places where it´s allowed and our city runs zero tolerance politics towards it, thus we have more dirty and quick graffiti.
But the beauty and free expression of humans always comes through eventually.. When I see how the image and public opinion about and of Graffiti have changed over the recent 30 years, it has come to flourishion a lot. Just 20 years ago it was hated and demonized generally. Nowadays it´s spread allover in any kind of pop culture, design and media.
Aside from the lightyears better public opinion, there is still so much illegal Graffiti in Germany because there is still too much supression put up ages ago by the infamous german love for regulations, that naturally causes resistance. Where there are more opportunities to exercise this form of art legally there is more skillful and beautiful art to find.
I could write a much more extensive comment, but I need to stop now. It´s interesting to have this video expressing your opinion. I never expected it, but it´s great.
As long as there are people who take offense by anything other than a grey wall, the rebellious aspect of Grafitis should be safe.
Is graffiti art or is it vandalism?
Yes, yes it is.
They can spray trains as much as they want - as long as they omit the windows. I hate sitting in a train where you can't look outside.
I'm currently studying art and design at the master's level in Vancouver. At the same time, I am studying architecture on another campus. When I'm out and about with fellow students in Vancouver and we come across polarizing graffiti, friendships often split into irreconcilable parties of ernormous diversive opinions about whether graffiti is art or vandalism. And I bet some observers would be very amazed at how conservative some young art students can be.
What is or isn't art is at least one thing: a topic that is often discussed very emotionally and can therefore quickly degenerate verbally.
Personally, I can't decide on that topic. Art doesn't have to be a high technical/craftsmanship-aesthetic representation of content that arises from within an artist's soul. But art doesn't necessarily have to arise from an artist's inner conflicts of whatever causes and therefore is be reflected in bizarre dystopian scenarios.
Art can be anything.
For me, the intention is important, not how aesthetically conforming or unconventionally destructive art manifests itself for its beholders. As I said, the artist's intention is important to me.
But not everyone understands this when looking at a work of art. Supposed if any beholder is willing to see graffiti as art, especially tag graffiti. In this case the following saying applies: Art is in the eye of the beholder(s).
Hello Ashton, that's a great video ! Actually you can see graffiti all over Germany. Sadly most of it is not really creative. I think it's good that the situation is keep in limbo a bit: it's kees at ping its status as a kind of protest and rebellion. However handling it too liberal could be seen as a violation of law not being taken serious by prosecution institution themselves, thus irrelevant and inviting just everybody to paint whatever they want on whichever surface they come across.
BTW, faces of buildings being painted isn't anything new in Europe. Some epochs of art and architecture have provided many example of which quite a number are stil present, ie. baroque, rococo, ... or more folkloristic decorative painting eg in and near the Alps.
People who just write their names on something are idiots, but i must admit some Graffiti are real Artworks so much that i would be sad if someone removes them
Sometimes I guess, vandalism is art and art is vandalism. There is a great episode of one of the best ever TV series in germany. Der Tatortreiniger - Currywurst.
Tagging where I live in the US is associated with drugs and/or gangs. I really dislike the tagging. But actual street art - that’s created to make a statement or get viewers thinking is different. I like art for all and the idea of places where it’s legal (but has some rules) seems like a great compromise for the situation.
When I sent a picture of myself at the Mauerpark to my mom, she replied "That doesn't look like a good district, better not stay there for the night" 😂
My friend caught someone spray painting his property; the “artist” had his fingers broken. No more graffiti in the area after that. Harsh, but effective.
I had a good laugh when you described how some German cities regulate graffiti, ending with "very German". Indeed! I live in Berlin, and I can enjoy graffiti in many places. It makes the city more vibrant and reduces the depressing grey of many buildings and constructions. It is true; most of it is truly art. What I don't like is graffiti on historic buildings - that I consider vandalism, especially since most of it is just scribble and signatures. In my view, this is destroying the architectural art of the past. What I really hate is graffiti on bus and train windows, as I prefer to look out of them. I don't mind graffiti on the main body of the buses and trains. To be fair, some buses also have paid advertisements on the windows; I hate those too; though they are half transparent, they make the whole city look grey.
I also wonder if regulating street art is destroying the spirit of its rebellious nature. When you showed the picture of the Berlin Wall, the western side with beautiful graffiti and the east side blank, my first thought was this illustrates perfectly the difference between a totalitarian system and a democracy. For the most part, the regulations were not created to acknowledge street art; graffiti was embraced, hoping that less unwanted graffiti would appear throughout the cities. If you want to avoid a house being randomly sprayed, have some street artists put some art on it first. By the way, the origin of the word "graffiti" is not Latin but Greek. The Romans adopted it from Greek.
I really enjoyed that you picked this topic. Well-rounded research, as always!
If graffiti looks good, and when it is applied on an otherwise ugly plain surface, I think that it is art. However, when it is ugly, applied on an old building that looked good before with an expensive material, I think it is vandalism.
Some of the artwork is quite good. There are official places, such as at the Kriegsbrücke, where I have seen an artist during the day creating his art. This past summer there was some street work at the Hauptplatz, but instead of resetting the stones, it was filled in with asphalt, then an artist created a stream with a wooden boat, a stork and a wooden bridge. Additionally, three photo points were created for fotos to be taken, from different angles and points. Great idea. A cover for our local magazine had a woman sitting on the boat, giving it a 3D effect. A lot of tagging is busy nonsense.
"a lovely piece of art up on this wall, so I better ruin it by spraying my tag on it"- and that's why we can't have nice things.
If Grafitti were always beautiful murals nobody would object. Unfortunately, the majority of grafitti, at least here in Berlin, are ugly so-called "Tags" - indecipherable letters supposedly representing the person having sprayed them. It is too much, it is everywhere, and the punishments should work to reduce it altogether
My hometown has hired artists to spray scenes of the 30-Years War on city property, commemorating stories from that time.
Same in Austria, by the way, with cities and towns providing areas for graffiti.
Graffiti CAN be art, but practically anything can considered art now, so the better question is whether the graffiti beautifies a neighborhood or not.
I live in Dresden, and there are a few areas such as the Kunsthofpassage in which the graffiti really does add character to certain areas (some of that "graffiti" was paid artwork with the intent to beautify and even that sometimes gets tagged over without consideration). I find, however, that the majority of graffiti defaces heritage architecture and otherwise beautiful neighborhoods and parks, and the problem just seems to be getting worse over the years, it seems. Datenschutz also makes it difficult for the government to do anything, since you can't just slap CCTVs everywhere to prevent it from happening in the first place.
Thanks for a great video!
Are there really people who think those illegible graffiti letters are art? I mean.... really?
Graffiti on private property without consent of the owner is nothing but vandalism.
that said, there is beautiful graffiti - and if public property attracts graffity, it is usually a sign of failed city planning.
a stencil graffity I once saw in a very bleak, concrete-dominated area: "Betonischer Garten" - that´s plain architectural criticism!
and another one, which I discovered while it was actually starting to snow: "Schnee ist das Blut der Geister!"
Very easy: Good graffitis are art and bad graffitis are vandalism….😅
No unless the “artist” owns the property or has the owner’s permission, it’s vandalism.
Whether you call it graffiti, tagging, or art, if it is done on property without the owner's permission, it is vandalism. I've always defined graffiti as being painting things in places without permission. So if a place is set up to allow the painting, in my definition it is not graffiti. Though the definitions I looked up just say generalized painting places in view of the public. If someone had a picture painted on the side of their building by a graffiti artist and then someone else came along at night and painted that wall blue, that person would be wrong.
I can highly recommend MAUSA, a street art museum in Neuf Brisach, not far from Freiburg!
Wir erinnern uns doch hoffentlich alle an Monthy Pyton "Life of Brian" 's "Römer geht nach Hause". Eines der besten Beispiele für Graffiti vs. Art
It depends, there is no clear answer. If the owner of the property is allowing it to paint on it and the Graffity isn't just "text messages", I think you can call it 'art'. Otherwise you only paint the wall with 'messages' and/or the owner doesn't allow it, I would call it vandalism.
I have nothing against graffiti if it's well done, if it's not just tagging and if it's not put on people's houses without permission. For example, if it's done in a public space (e.g. a public pedestrian tunnel) and has some artistic value, why not? A grey concrete wall, a red brick wall or painting everything in one boring color doesn't look any better than a nice artwork, does it?
In the past, we had some problems with ugly tagging in the driveway of an apartment building I used to live in, and the solution was simple: we invited graffiti artists to paint the walls of the entrance. Yes, we even offered to pay them for the paint and they could choose the motif as long as it wasn't obviously offensive. We even painted over the two walls completely in advance and they were allowed to choose the colors, as this determines the base color of their canvas. One wall was red, the other blue and then they got started. The whole process took several weeks and in the end the red wall had a futuristic and rather abstract space motif and the blue one a more classic underwater motif with a mermaid and a giant octopus. This solved the tagging problem because other sprayers didn't want to paint over these images. On the one hand, it would have been disrespectful to the other sprayers and their tremendous work (it would have destroyed parts of the image and possibly even made it look as if the image was created by the taggers), and on the other hand, their tags would have been very difficult to see in the confusion of colors. And last but not least, the solution was cost-effective: instead of having to constantly remove tags and repaint the walls, it was a one-off cost and even after many years the paintings are still there and look as good as on day one.
Tagging is the need to cry out "I wuz here" to people who probably don't give a damn. On the other hand, the various expressions, illustrations and designs that take a great deal of work and skill can really improve an old and drab looking area. I don't think it would sit very well in very historic areas with older architecture, especially since we seek to preserve many of those, but also because the surface art is done on can impact the result, but there are surfaces that clearly are there just for practical purposes that don't have any particular artistic value, to which value can be added through street art, and I think there it deserves to be encouraged. And there are a lot of such places in the world. That said, it's all on a case to case basis and it is respectful to have people's permission just in general. Whether be it to use their art, or to create art on things their own.
All graffiti is art but all graffiti is also vandalism that is why the line between legal and illegal can not be drawn in graffiti itself. The line has to be drawn elsewhere, more precisely in where do we accept the "vandalism" and where do we not. Personally I find the idea of specific locations predesignated for legal artistic expression to be the most ideal solution for everyone and then I guess the heated debate should be about where those should be and not so much about is it art or not.
When it comes to Graffiti, I am a Nimby. The owner of the property decides what to do with it. Imagine a graffiti artist who bought a house and pointed it to hos liking and then I come and paint the house white. I am sure he would not be too happy. The moment it is asked to be done, it is not graffiti. It becomes street-art. Tag over it and that part is graffiti.
And is graffiti art or vandalism? For me graffiti is the illegal part. Street-art is the legal part. If you like how it looks does not change that. Art can be ugly for some and legal things can look great (i.e. Banksy) for some.
So for me it is not even a discussion. Graffiti is vandalism, because it is illegal that sometimes looks good. Street-art is art, because it is legal that sometimes looks bad.
Graffiti without permission of the owner of the wall is vandalism in every country. I hate it!
"Is Graffiti Art, or is Graffiti Vandalism?"
You're making a simple mistake here. You're assuming that Vandalism can not be Art and vice versa. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Graffity is Art, but depending where it is used on whether or not the place it was made allows it, it can also be Vandalism.
This has become a lovely Sunday morning routine: Having my coffee while watching Type Ashton's newest video, so thanks for that!
As to your question: Subjectively, there is no difficulty in answering it. Graffiti is a wonderful way to lend art and vibrancy (read 'life'!) to all those depressing concrete walls of tunnels, bridges etc. Nowhere better to be experienced than by the two sides of the Wall as shown in your video. But it hurts to see a fine old building defaced by it, especially, of course, when it's primitive scrawling of some nonsense, but also in general. The usual type of Graffiti is very modern, edgy, aggressive - it doesn't fit with a building from the 1900s any more than a hip hop dancer would fit into the Barock castle of Ludwigsburg. I expect the artists would argue they didn't mean it to fit in, but that's where they would be wrong. They have the right to express themselves via their art - but so did those who created those older buildings.
On an objective level, however, it is awfully difficult to find a rule that fits all, because who is going to decide where Graffiti would enrich the urban landscape and where it wouldn't?
About those concrete abberations, two wrongs (poor architecture superimposed by spray can vandalism) do not make a right. And nice architecture does not make sprayers cease and desist either.
Besides, the theory behind brutalism is "decoration is crime" in the first place. I would wager that this includes amateur ad-hoc "decoration" ... ;-)