Art or graffiti?

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/4702
Quote: "Vandals like Mandell who commit graffiti offences often believe that their work is art - sadly when the chosen canvas is railway property it cannot be considered art

If Kandinsky had splashed his paint on a railway wall instead of a canvas would it be art or graffiti?

Here's a bit of phoney art/graffiti.

if its someone else's property it's criminal damage...

I love the complicated police analysis,hang on judging by his mugshot this guy is 4ft 4 inchs tall,how many dwarf graffiti artists are there out there.

If Damien Hirst painted one of his dot paintings on railway property without permission, it might be criminal damage, but would it be art or graffiti?


"Albumin, Human, Glycated," by Damien Hirst

To me, this IS art though

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/4578

I know writing on someone elses property is criminal damage but what about Banksy? I think there's a difference in someone like him, and someone just tagging 'I woz ere' on a wall.

I think you're right.

There is a difference (although not legally) but, unfortunately, Banksy's work 'legitimises' the tagging morons - you only need to see the mess that Leake Street became after Banksy's occupations (sorry, festivals of street art) to see that the taggers think they are part of the same culture.

Has anyone seen the 'Gold Peg' on the top of the E&C shopping centre, over the market office?

I thought it was interesting and have found more by this 'artist/vandal'

Gold Peg

Rambling Phil wrote:

There is a difference (although not legally) but, unfortunately, Banksy's work 'legitimises' the tagging morons

Yeah its unfortunate but I think you do have a good point here. As much as I admire Banksy, I do think it gives others a green light. I wouldn't stop him or others like him. But how do you police 'good graffiti' against 'bad'. Impossible.