3 ms·

Graffiti is usually tagging [1], but includes other forms of (non-sanctioned) random acts of art and, especially, writing. Wall murals are usually sanctioned –

Graffiti is usually tagging [1], but includes other forms of (non-sanctioned) random acts of art and, especially, writing. Wall murals are usually sanctioned – either there is permission granted to paint a wall, or, often, they are commissioned. Usually there is only one artist or company that makes the "complete" mural, with much planning and coordination, and no intervention by casual passerby. In the source below, you can see that though it is wall, it is being tagged (not a mural) with various ad-hoc contributors. Some would argue that a wall that is purposefully provided as a space for passerby to add their contributions (to add "graffiti" to it) makes it not graffiti at all, since that goes against its anti-institutional spirit. In that view, commissioned wall murals by an artist are distinctly not grafitti. 1 – https://www.britannica.com/topic/tagging https://www.britannica.com/topic/tagging

lucideer 3y ago
This seems like a separation that's a little too clean to fit reality. Does that hard line of distinction really exist? Certainly there are clear examples on both ends of the spectrum, but here's some closer to the boundaries of your definition from my own hometown - I wonder how you'd classify these: 1. This street of sanctioned individual pieces, mostly "tags" but elaborate full-wall pieces each by an individual tagger: https://maps.app.goo.gl/byceFqUQSaTeun2q6?g_st=ic https://maps.app.goo.gl/byceFqUQSaTeun2q6?g_st=ic 2. This unsanctioned (currently in court) full-building mural done by an ad agency: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/60/f6/7360f64042a71f241fe88202a6167f5b.png https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/60/f6/7360f64042a71f241fe8... --- (personally I'd call the sanctioned tags both murals and graffiti, and definitely classify them as art, but I'd only call the ad agency piece a mural; neither graffiti nor art - though I fully acknowledge that last judgement is a subjective one and not something universal)
- tropdrop 3y ago
  I'd use my "especially writing" heuristic here to separate the two – graffiti comes from the Greek root "graph" (to write), right? So even though 1 contains elaborate and beautiful full wall pieces, I would still consider them "graffiti," especially because they seem spontaneous productions by citizens (taking back the architecture of the city into their own hands!) and not commissioned by an agency. The involvement of the ad agency (i.e., an institution of some sort) and lack of writing would make 2 certainly not graffiti, despite the subversion of the law. We could call it vandalism, actually. Beautiful vandalism in the form of a wall mural! The trickiest to define is something like the Berlin wall – if I'm not mistaken, the city gave permission for anyone to come draw/tag to their hearts' content all along portions of a wall. Does permission make it not graffiti? Some would say yes. Personally, I disagree – if it is writing rather than drawings, I still consider it graffiti, minus any perjorative associations of the word. Grafitti is an art form too.

lucideer 3y ago

This seems like a separation that's a little too clean to fit reality. Does that hard line of distinction really exist? Certainly there are clear examples on both ends of the spectrum, but here's some closer to the boundaries of your definition from my own hometown - I wonder how you'd classify these: 1. This street of sanctioned individual pieces, mostly "tags" but elaborate full-wall pieces each by an individual tagger: https://maps.app.goo.gl/byceFqUQSaTeun2q6?g_st=ic https://maps.app.goo.gl/byceFqUQSaTeun2q6?g_st=ic 2. This unsanctioned (currently in court) full-building mural done by an ad agency: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/60/f6/7360f64042a71f241fe88202a6167f5b.png https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/60/f6/7360f64042a71f241fe8... --- (personally I'd call the sanctioned tags both murals and graffiti, and definitely classify them as art, but I'd only call the ad agency piece a mural; neither graffiti nor art - though I fully acknowledge that last judgement is a subjective one and not something universal)

tropdrop 3y ago
I'd use my "especially writing" heuristic here to separate the two – graffiti comes from the Greek root "graph" (to write), right? So even though 1 contains elaborate and beautiful full wall pieces, I would still consider them "graffiti," especially because they seem spontaneous productions by citizens (taking back the architecture of the city into their own hands!) and not commissioned by an agency. The involvement of the ad agency (i.e., an institution of some sort) and lack of writing would make 2 certainly not graffiti, despite the subversion of the law. We could call it vandalism, actually. Beautiful vandalism in the form of a wall mural! The trickiest to define is something like the Berlin wall – if I'm not mistaken, the city gave permission for anyone to come draw/tag to their hearts' content all along portions of a wall. Does permission make it not graffiti? Some would say yes. Personally, I disagree – if it is writing rather than drawings, I still consider it graffiti, minus any perjorative associations of the word. Grafitti is an art form too.