Art is a tricky thing to define. As we all know. Or maybe we don’t. I find it a lot easier to recognize what is art than what isn’t. Today I got into a debate with a Twitter account for DPW’s Zero Graffiti program. What strikes me the most about Zero Graffiti SF‘s argument here is the implication that acknowledging that something is art is to condone it or qualify it in a positive way. I understand that the city doesn’t want people tagging where they’re not supposed to (pretty much everywhere), but I wonder why they won’t call it art. Or rather, why they specifically decide to say that it’s not.
Why can’t it be both? Saying it’s art doesn’t condone it. “@zerograffitisf: Tagging Is Not Art; It’s Property Damage http://t.co/oacGoMHe9T”
— Ariel Dovas (@eviloars) January 14, 2014
@eviloars difference between art and vandalism? permission. If you have permission, you have art; if not, you have vandalism – simple
— Zero Graffiti SF (@zerograffitisf) January 14, 2014
.@zerograffitisf So Banksy's not art? Even if his vandalism is worth the price of the building it's on? Art doesn't have to be asked for.
— Ariel Dovas (@eviloars) January 14, 2014
.@zerograffitisf @cynthia_says No, art can be vandalism, art can be illegal. Not that plain, not that simple. http://t.co/1qWBrCPC8u
— Ariel Dovas (@eviloars) January 14, 2014
