can you believe some people don't think graffiti is art? Check this out?

That made me happy!

Thank you =)

I think in this case, more credit should be given to the moviemaker and the moviemaker's concept than to the actors in the movie. The "art" is a heck of a lot more interesting in progress, and moving, than it is when it's finished and static.

And it's nice to see this stuff INSIDE, for a change. But when you come right down to it, in context, the 2-D elements of the film are more set-dressing than art.

Overall, though, I was only seriously impressed with the wheel-throwing segment. Now *that* was original, and very well executed. Lost interest when they moved on to trees.

In reply to your comment, penydred---

I went back and watched it again. I also went to the Rinpa Eshidan site.

http://www.rinpaeshidan.jp/

I knew there had to be a reason I actually liked some of this stuff, and there is. They're not graffiti artists, and what they're doing is not graffiti.

They are performance artists. They engage a willing audience, and record everything on film. They don't use aggression and force on the unwilling, in the dead of night.

These people are all about their performances and their movies. I watched several, and this particular one is the most scripted (and "acted" as well). This one's a narrative. It isn't about or for graffiti. They don't even use the word graffiti on their site.

And I think the fact that their designed set looks exactly like a set elevation makes my "set-dressing" comment a fairly accurate one. They're changing the scene.

Obviously you and I are just going to have to disagree about the true nature of this little film. You think it's a graffiti piece because you want it to be. I think it's not, because the artists are clearly up to something else.

There are clearly two sides to this subject.

Yes, many graffiti artists are talented. Yes, art is and always has been (and always will be, I hope!) an expression of our current culture. Yes, graffiti has been around as long as any other art form (found in ancient Roman civilizations).

However... history is also filled with poverty and class struggle. How we choose to express that condition is a choice, and the choice can involve either mutual respect or disrespect.

Artists (and would-be artists) have lived in poverty for centuries. They used their food and rent money to buy paint and canvas in order to express their condition. (They loved the smell of paint too!) But today's "artists" are willing to buy paint, but have chosen to skip the "buy canvas" part - why? Do they honestly think the world owes them the opportunity to publicly display their angst without even asking permission from those who own their canvas?

Sorry, but the bottom line is - I can't condone the destruction of private property for the sake of art. I've been dead broke at times in my life, but I chose other respectful artistic avenues for expression.

Your excuse that "marginalized youth that are not given alternatives" is a weak one - it simply perpetuates the attitude that they should be exempt from laws and do as they please while others pay the consequences.

Once they show some respect, they're likely to earn some respectability.

Graffiti is not art. If you can buy spray paint, why cant you buy paper? It's cheaper and no one will mind if you want to "express yourself" or whatever our reason may be. People just use art a an exscuse to damage property. How would feel if one day some decided to paint your car? Would you say, "Oh, what a great painting." or would you say , "Who did this, I'm pressing charges." Probably the latter.

Yes most Graffiti is art if used properly. I mean if you someone were not use someone's permission to paint on their building, i see that would be graffiti, like how groups of kids just put gang sign symbols, I see that being bad graffiti. If it like that youtube...i call that art. It's all colorful and stuff and very creative.

Absolutly Brilliant. Great Art Work. Thank's For Sharing It

I totally agree with lylikdesign, when you have bad words written on the side of your house, or on public walls they don´t really express art. Art has good and bad exponents, you can see a Picasso and find it beautiful, but if an amateur draws a horrible painting, well it is not the same art.

i support the programs of free expression on especially designated areas to paint graffiti, just don´t do it on private property...

Füčk those who don't think it's art, they're the same people that follow mainstream media like sheeple

Yes Graffiti is art but not when it is put onto Bus Shelters, Public Toilets etc.. as it comes out of the Tax Payers money to clean it up.

I'm happy you shared that. Great vid and great art. Made me very happy...LOVED the music. Man they really worked hard on that.

Same as with any painting: Some is art and some isn't. It is just that we get confronted a lot more with graffiti that isn't than with other stuff that isn't.

This IS art.

Because art is subjective. You may not like what I like, and that's all good, but don't put your idea of art on my wall or my post box or my sidewalk. It would be especially nice if there were no "art" on my street signs making it so that I cannot read them. You don't art my property and I won't art yours.

Not art to me:

http://www.markgibsonphoto.com/static/1326.html

http://www.llumar.co.uk/fms/graffiti.asp

http://www.victoriacrimestoppers.com/news.php?cat=...

http://www.charityguide.org/volunteer/fewhours/gra...

http://www.wpthezone.co.uk/adultzone/adultinformat...

Even if it looked like those above but you had permission I wouldn't object. You can't force people to see art.