The document summarizes the results of a survey conducted for a documentary project comparing graffiti and street art to conventional art. The survey showed that most respondents preferred a time-lapse opening depicting a tagger spraying graffiti over an alternative involving a police chase. Respondents also wanted interviews with both a graffiti artist and a conventional artist, though concerns were noted about length. All wanted the graffiti tagger's face blurred but recognized this may not be possible if interviewing a former tagger who is now professional. Title options were also tested, with the documentarians planning to combine the top two choices into "Graffiti vs Art".

1. Although our class consisted of mainly females,
we felt that the demographic of our audience for
the documentary would consist of mostly men as
graffiti and urban art or more affiliated with
masculinity and there are more male street
vandalisers and street artists. Therefore we
interview more males to try and get more
accurate answers from our projected audience.
We felt like our audience demographic for our
documentary would consist of teenagers and young
adults as most graffiti taggers start tagging at a teenage
age and graffiti artists start becoming professional at a
young adult age. We questionnaire’d people in our year
group but were unable to find any young adults that
could complete our questionnaire.

2. These results show that everyone we
questionnaire’d were fit to answer the questions in
a non-bias way and that they had sufficient enough
knowledge to give the best and most accurate
answers they could. They would also then be
interested in the questions and give as much
helpful advice as possible for our documentary.
These results show that most people in our demographic
preferred to watch a reflexive mode of documentary. The
reflexive mode considers the quality of documentary itself,
de-mystifying its processes and considering its
implications. This is therefore what we will try to
implement in our documentary. However we are leaning
on the decision to have the documentarian behind the
camera and simply provide voice-over when needed.

3. These results show that our audience liked the idea and
premise of our documentary and that they hadn't seen
the such controversial and conflicting topic been
portrayed in a documentary before and that lots of
people feel like graffiti is distasteful which is conflict
against the growing spread of graffiti. These opinions we
feel we could question by comparing different types of
graffiti to art and see if there opinions can change.
These results show that much of our audience have only
ever heard of graffiti artist Banksy in comparison to
other graffiti artists. This is helpful as we will try to
implement more narration about Banksy and contain
more footage of his work. This also helps as, if we want
to talk about other artists, we will be sure to give more
information on them so the audience can be more
familiar with them.

4. We had a very fixed idea on what we wanted our
opening to have the title of our documentary strayed on
a wall. However we weren’t sure whether it should be a
recreation of a tagger spraying and then being chased off
by a policeman or whether it should be a gritty and
urban time-lapse of a tagger spraying. The results show
that the audience preferred the time-lapse, which was
helpful as we were questioning if we could get a police
uniform and if the other option would be possible.
Considering that the premise of our documentary is comparing
graffiti to art, we thought that interviewing a graffiti artist and a
conventional artist would be best suitable for collecting accurate
information and answers for our documentary. The results show
that all of the audience wanted us to interview a graffiti artist and
half wanted a conventional artist. However we were sceptical if
we could fit 2 interviews in our documentary and how short we
would have to put them. We had also emailed 4 different graffiti
artists and workshops and had got no replies.

5. These results show that all of our audience wanted the
graffiti taggers face it be blurred out during the interview.
However if were to only interview one person we would
have to interview a tagger that has become a professional
graffiti artist; to which we would then not need a blur
affect. Also it would be hard for the blur to track his/her
face if his head would to move around a lot.
These results show that there was some confliction
over which title would be best for our
documentary. This question was particularly
important as we would be spraying it on a wall
during our opening time-lapse. We also wanted it
to be clear and short so that it would fit onto the
wall and be as clear to the audience what the
premise if the documentary was. We are now
thinking of combing the two favourite answers into
simply: Graffiti vs Art.