Follow by email:

Monday, 5 October 2015

Eternity

We were out and about and I saw this:



I started to explain to the kids the history behind it, and my daughter suddenly announced "It's graffiti. It's bad!*". I replied, 'It's not graffiti, it's in chalk'.
However, it got me wondering, is it graffiti? I seem to have this idea, that chalk is fine because of the non permanence of the medium. However, a quick google told me otherwise. Even hopscotch is graffiti. The difference between street art and graffiti is permission.

Would you have classed my photo as graffiti? Would you class hopscotch as graffiti?

Linking up with #WWU and later #WeekendRewind


*Given where we live, my love of street art, and our constant discussions on the merits of works we visit, I have no idea where this attitude comes from.

15 comments:

  1. In my mind, graffiti is senseless tagging done to leave a mark, spoil something or cause damage. Street art is done to make something more beautiful, to send a message or make the place interesting, like murals or stencils or paste ups. I adore street art by my definition and think graffiti is boring and ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I tend to agree with your view. I consider graffiti to be more permanent than chalk. Having said that, had the word written in chalk been a swear word or a "tag", then I would have classed it as graffiti.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would say street art but at the same time I am always making sure my kids don't draw past the bottom of our driveway when we chalk draw outside (as we rent even doing that is suspect but I don't care). I love street art and wish there was more but I suspect some vandals consider their 'work' to be 'art'.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gosh, now you have me thinking. I'm much like everyone else and consider tagging graffiti, where as commissioned street art pieces just that... art.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wouldn't consider chalk graffitti :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think if it's not permanent, it's not graffiti. There are also heaps of graffiti art around that I would definitely classify as public art and we should be grateful it's done for free! I HATE the tagging. HATE IT. x

    ReplyDelete
  7. No permanent so not graffiti. But having said that, I do like some graffiti. Not the useless, property wrecking type but the street art type that lights up otherwise dull and boring spaces. That brings colour and talent to the wider world.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't think it's graffiti if it's chalk - I'm sure if it was back in the day, we would have been locked up heaps of times !!! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  9. I like Amy's definition of it. I wouldn't consider this graffiti, but also because it's on the pavement and will be removed easily. Chalk on the side of a business that the business owner might feel the need to wash away, could be graffiti. I guess it's maybe relational to the amount of work taken to remove it, and how purposeful it is? Interesting question.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nope. Non permanent. Face paint is not a tattoo. Chalk on the pavement is not Graffiti. Unless it's an obscene picture that might burn your eyes ... then it's graffiti ...

    ReplyDelete
  11. I really like this "The difference between street art and graffiti is permission" with a house that has a back wall fronting onto a very major exposed road - I agree - even if it was street art on my wall - without my permission - I wouldn't like it

    ReplyDelete
  12. No chalk comes off everything ... Chalk is good

    ReplyDelete
  13. Chalk doesn't count as graffiti in my book either x

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm with you, if it can be removed without hassle.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yeah, I can see how it could be defined as graffiti but I think it's pretty. Non permanent graffiti is A-OK in by book :)

    ReplyDelete