Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ceejache
Why is Jackson Pollack (sp?) considered art but not graffiti - they both look the same to my eye.
|
Personally I don't consider what Jackson Pollock has created to be worthy of the title "art" either. I sometimes wonder if it isn't a case of "The Emperor's New Clothes".
Maybe the definition of art should be that it is on a canvas or something similar which can be placed wherever the owner of it wishes to place it (within their own premises) wheras graffitti is forced upon us whether we want it or not and most cases it is 'not' and daubed upon the premises of those who do not want it by people who have no right to do so.