[Sazerac]

Man, it's a tough question. First you have to tackle the definition of "What is Art?" which critics and philosophers have been tussling with for generations. If you take the stance that Art is an expression of idea and emotion into form, then graffiti *would* fall under the definition of Art; at least some forms of it would.

I know for a fact that some of the coolest art I've seen is on the walls of buildings in downtown Dallas (Deep Ellum and the arts district), where proprietors actually PAY young "starving" artists in the area to paint the walls of their businesses with graffiti. It is a riot of color and fantastic expression, and people do come down there just to see it, which, of course, attracts them into the businesses, so it's good for everyone.

What someone defines as Art, though, may be completely different to someone else, and there are no real standards or definitions.

Let's look at what Leo Tolstoy said about it at the end of the 19th century:

"In order correctly to define art, it is necessary, first of all, to cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and to consider it as one of the conditions of human life. Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man.

Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced, or is producing, the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously, or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression.

Speech, transmitting the thoughts and experiences of men, serves as a means of union among them, and art acts in a similar manner. The peculiarity of this latter means of intercourse, distinguishing it from intercourse by means of words, consists in this, that whereas by words a man transmits his thoughts to another, by means of art he transmits his feelings . . .

To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling - this is the activity of art.

Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them."
-TOLSTOY, "What is Art?", 1896

So, according to Tolstoy, Art is a form of non-verbal communication on an emotional level. I disagree with him that the artistic impression must be the same for everyone who views and participates in the art, but just that an impression is made and communicated. What I see in art may be different from what others see, and yet we may all be correct, like the blind men examining the elephant.

In this case, I would consider the form of graffiti you were speaking of, Sir ReGiN, as "art", as it was a conscious form of emotional expression. The city of Stockholm was misguided, IMO, in shutting down the exhibit, as those who participated felt that their expression was being prohibited, and took retaliatory action in a less pleasant manner. It is a classic case of taking a general rule and applying it mindlessly to a situation that was an exception.

Cheers,
-Sazerac

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Sazerac ]