Should Graffiti Be Considered As Art

558 Words3 Pages
Should graffiti be considered as art

Graffiti isn’t just some type of vandalism to private property in others eyes it can be considered as art.
Graffiti art has been here since prehistoric times it give insight on the cultures and civilization before our times. According to, Greg Eickmier writes, “humans for thousands of years have made works of art in public spaces. Whether or not these works communicate understandable messages.” He’s trying to say that all works of art don’t have a clear message for you to understand. During the prehistoric times cave mens drawn on the walls to express themselves, but they also did it because that’s how they tell their stories. Still to this day some of our smartest scientist can not figure out what it means, they have tried for many years and still can’t uncover its mysteries. Cave mens have interesting stories to tell and to show how us how they lived and to help understand their language.
…show more content…
Greg Eickmier points out That “Pollock’s abstract works had no figurative imagery in them whatsoever and so the idea of an image was replaced with the idea of expression and thus turned any notion of meaning or interpretation towards the perception of the viewer.” When people look at his master piece they be wondering what are they looking it look like he just splattered paint all over his canvas, because his art shows no meaning or no interpretation. Pollock’s art has changed through the modern era, the way people looked at art has changed a lot. During the modern era artist has used a new technique to art as Greg Erickmier points out “ high-watermark that created a pivotal turning point in painting”, people perspective of looking at art has changed during that time period people want to see imagery and some
Open Document