Fan Art : Art Or Not?

Graffiti is a controversial topic in some areas that would say that graffiti can’t be considered art. But how can’t it be considered art? Does the location or the message of the art make it any less art? How much do people even know about graffiti, which is judged upon so hard in today's era?

Yes, I do think the fans should be concerned about the alleged injustices since they may be supporting the injustice by buying tickets and buying the video games.

Many artists in history have been detained, killed, and censored because society deemed their artwork despicable. What good can come out from destroying the painting? It’s not like everyone will just not be racist and not appropriate anymore. Racism is still there. It will never go away. Art is not supposed to satisfy everyone. By destroying this artwork, you are censoring the artist, which is a type of oppression and that is hypocritical. You are doing the very same thing that your ancestors have experienced. We are repeating history. Also, many have said that this artwork appropriating black culture. Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of the elements of one culture by the members of another culture. Take for example, Katy Perry in her 2013 American Music Awards in which she dressed up as a Japanese Geisha and had Chinese fan dancers in the background. That is in no doubt, culture appropriation. She is using elements from Asian culture. But this painting does not just portray black culture. It is a part of history in which black and white both contributed to. The artist also mentioned that she made this art, “...out of sympathy for the pain endured by Till’s mother” (Roberta Smith).This lady probably does not really understand the pain and she should have asked the mother first because that’s her son but we should not jump to conclusions so fast. People quickly jumped on the idea that because she was white and that

For centuries, people’s aesthetic value has been influenced by Rome's perfectionism, so do I. I used to think that artworks that make people feel appreciated are just equivalent to visual appreciation and satisfaction. However, after observing the painting and researching sources of this pieces of art I realized that an excellent artwork needs to cover all aspect requirements. For instance, an excellent artwork needs to contain a high operation of art skills as well as art knowledge in order to persuade audience. In addition, to qualify as a great artwork it has to create a substantial amount of activity in the audience’s mind or heart. When I look at an artwork I always try to figure out what is the artwork's message or what the artist is trying to communicate, to convey. Overall, I think a good artwork needs include some of the elements and principles of the language of art as well as the structure they give to be able to successfully communicate an idea.

There are many reasons why art exist, and why people continue to make it. Art can bring joy and hope to a group of people, but it can also dehumanize the same group. This all depends on who creates the art and the motivation behind the creation. Throughout the history of the United States, in regard to race, we see how art has done and does both. According to Paul Von Blum (2012), historical “depictions of Black women, men, and children were highly stereotypical and demeaning.” These negative visual representations of black individuals were set to devalue their existence. They perpetuated “visions of African Americans as lazy, irresponsible,

The First Amendment speaks on the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition; so important, they found their place in the US Constitution. Even with these freedoms meaning so much to the majority of America, somehow today we still encounter differences in political and religious views that seem to provoke people to act violently against a piece of art or even physically against the artist that created it such as in the recent case of artist Illma Gore. Often the violent action of destroying a work of art is “more offensive” than the image itself. We should allow artists free reign of subject matter as well as style and work together to prevent art desecration and violence through education of the arts. Censorship is the result of the fear of art. When the fear of art turns into iconoclasm or, rejection of a valued belief system, that fear becomes lack of government funding, desecration, and physical violence.

Artists shouldn't use their music in advertising. This could lead to them losing their image, or getting the wrong one. It could also mean that the stress of someone else's image is on them, as well as theirs. Some people might believe that this could be great. Advertising could lead to thousands of dollars, and make a

Understanding this, I want to make it clear that censorship should not be the solution. I believe that artists should be able to make and

Thomas Foster explains to his readers that there is no such thing as an original piece of art, because every story is influenced by another.

Throughout the years, when there has been a piece of artwork there has always a similar piece of work that made fun of it. That similar piece of work is called a parody. Parodies primarily come in the form of music, books, pictures, and movies. Even though parodies are made to be funny, it still retains some of its formal elements. The work of art either has to be famously well known or widely open for a pun. The main objective in a parody is to imitate or make fun of it in some type of way. In today society parodies enclose us from every angle.

Is graffiti art? Yes, graffiti is art, through vandalism. By this I mean that graffiti artists are just as much artists as anyone else but their workspace is simply different than a Leonardo Da Vinci’s. Yes graffiti is unwarranted but anything can be considered art. Graffiti is art because it portrays a message and it lets voices be heard, graffiti lets youth express themselves through a unique way and it adds beauty and difference to our world.

It is a form of art not a crime. Going out of their way to trespass and damage property like fences, road barriers, or warning signs is considered a crime. Art wise, it attracts large crowds and shocks a few. It is a way to build a creative imagination and to be spontaneous. It really depends on how people look and feel about it. But there are

One argument that is continually pulled into this debate is the First Amendment. According to the United States Constitution, everyone is entitled to the right to free speech, which is a "sacred" American belief. By submitting to censorship, artists are essentially

Throughout history, the issue of appropriation in art has become a heated debate on whether it is good or whether it is bad. Appropriation is fundamentally the act of taking something from somewhere else and placing it into a new context. In art, appropriation is seen as using (or taking) someone else's artwork, manipulating it and ultimately changing the whole meaning behind the work. It is seen as a significant issue as many people (including art critics, art historians and art enthusiasts) see appropriation as whilst, others see it as being inappropriate and immoral, and see the growth in appropriation as being a destroyer of art. It is of the opinion that art indeed "feeds off itself" and every artwork, art movement, and art period is

Being an artist regardless of the medium is all about creativity. Allowing someone step in to enforce rules strips away that creativity. Art is about expressing thoughts and feelings stifling creativity can be detrimental to one's health. People are encouraged throughout life to be creative. Only to be censored by someone if their art is deemed inappropriate is absurd! Igniting that flame, then removing it in the same breath because some might find its offense is counterproductive.