As we familiarize ourselves with the motives and definitions of graffiti art as we move from ancient to contemporary times, one issue still remains present in my mind: the classification of what graffiti is. As mentioned in the article for this week by Paris O’Donnell, it is unclear if at the beginning, graffiti was not classified because it was considered a normal human relationship with past art, or because this method of defacement was not common enough to have a name.<\/p>\n
I am consistently suck on the idea that the act of graffiti was such a method of communication that it was not classified as its own form of expression. It makes me question the existence of graffiti in the contemporary realm, and how this expression is so similar (and or different) from the works of antiquity that we look at now. I am curious to explore placement, as well as think more about types of graffiti explored by O’Donnell such as “family arms” and initials. It seems to be these could be similar to the tags used by contemporary artists, yet perceived so differently by the general public<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As we familiarize ourselves with the motives and definitions of graffiti art as we move from ancient to contemporary times, one issue still remains present in my mind: the classification of what graffiti is. As mentioned in the article for this week by Paris O’Donnell, it is unclear if at the beginning, graffiti was not … <\/p>\n