Should graffiti be judged on the same level as modern art? Of course not: It's way more important than that.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
After pop art, graffiti is probably the biggest art movement in recent history to have such an impact on culture.
The parts of graffiti I like are really antagonizing still - it's not something that a museum would really embrace.
Graffiti's always been a temporary art form. You make your mark and then they scrub it off.
Modern art, in particular, seems especially vulnerable to fraud. Its abstractions are sometimes difficult to understand or grasp, and a modern painting is often loved less because of its intrinsic quality - its beauty, as conventionally understood - than because of the identity of the painter, its mark of social status.
Graffiti has an interesting relationship to the broader world of hip-hop: It's part of the culture, but also in a weird way a stepchild of the culture.
All graffiti is low-level dissent, but stencils have an extra history. They've been used to start revolutions and to stop wars.
I love graffiti because it enables kids from every social extraction to do something that brings them closer to art, when they normally wouldn't be stimulated to be visually creative. Graffiti helps to develop an awareness of immediate expressive and uncontrolled freedom.
My graffiti really comes more from a May '68, sort of Situationist vibe than the hip-hop world. I think a real graffiti artist would find me a poser.
For me, graffiti and the complexities with which it is either absorbed or expelled from what is going on, is a really good comparison to the way I see my work being similarly expelled or absorbed into different types of discourse.
I think there are a lot more important things than art in the world. But not to me.
No opposing quotes found.