—
It cannot be denied that graffiti has come along as an artform over half a century, despite such humble beginnings. From tagging as a way to sign your name anonymously to works of art intentionally signed by the likes of Banksy, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Keith Haring, or Lee Quinones, it really depends on where the graffiti shows up as to how they are accepted.
While there may be urban art festivals held globally to promote street art and encourage young budding graffiti talent who are now making big bank from corporate backers, the fact remains, graffiti is frequently done outside the law. A challenge is presented to property owners, public works departments, municipalities, or homeowners who must seek a surface preparation tool to remove graffiti from walls, roadways, statues, monuments, and other structures.
The Debate Depends On Who You Ask
Graffiti has a reputation for being an expression that calls for interpretation. While all art is subjective, when there is some level of code involved, it tends to require some inside information for the viewer to appreciate the context. People of a certain age tend to dislike it without reserve.
Graffitists may consider they are sharing their art with a community free of charge while residents find it hard to appreciate the artistic nature of streetscape canvases. At first blush, the message is received: It looks like vandalism. However, there are some who, after further review, begin to see it as art.
Perhaps it is the gang-related origins that leave an essence of a pockmarked reputation for vandalism. Fears do arise, even when there are festivals celebrating the artwork as to whether this display will spread throughout the city and maybe beyond.
The NIMBY crowd worries that permitting graffiti art in their neighborhood is not helpful in promoting a safe, business-friendly environment. Countering this ideology are supporters who state this art is certainly not vandalism, but murals created under contract with the building owners. Detractors are typically criticized for not understanding the purpose of such events.
The Controversy Is Education vs. Interpretation
A trip to the local art museum will prove that most peoples’ taste is all in their mouths. Art aficionados who take the time to learn about the artists, the period or era the art comes from and the stories the images portray become enthralled in learning how to “read” paintings.
With graffiti, it is a matter of overcoming the sensation that they appear to be urban blight. The question remains, even with promotional festivals, if neighborhood viewers will see them as urban bloom. Clearly, the effort to promote and encourage or recruit new artists continues. The effort is one of dispelling the mythology tied to the decades-old medium.
A middle-of-the-road conclusion as to whether graffiti is art or vandalism is to say it is actually both. The gang-influenced taint does not necessarily equate to gang-related. Promoters like to compare it to other forms of art or hip-hop music, which by itself is perhaps not the best comparison for the same reasons. Detractors who do not understand the nuances see graffiti as a foreign language.
Where Are The Limits?
It may be incumbent upon residents to deal with the neighborhood blight if the hope is to curb or prevent the spread of unwanted graffiti. Long-abandoned buildings in long-ignored communities attract the contributions of graffitists who feel unencumbered by the repercussions of being caught in the act of “creating art.”
The competition among graffitists fuels the flood of artwork appearing as they try to outdo each other in their accomplishments. This level of challenge yet again gives rise to the nature of rivalry. Is it then more a matter of questioning the origins rather than the quality of the works?
This draws in others as to the condition of graffiti and how they impact the community. Historic structures that become targeted by proximity put the building owners or managers through a lot of trouble when they must come up with a surface preparation tool to remove graffiti. They have the preservation of the original structure to consider, the expense when it becomes a multifaceted approach depending on the extent of the artwork and the hope that the building will not be targeted again once the cleanup is finished.
In some parts of the world, antiquated structures formed of ancient marble have been permanently marred from the effort to remove the defacing graffiti. Again, the controversy is one of recognizing there really are no boundaries for the graffitist bent on expressing himself. To this end, there could even be seen a bit of the anarchist in his choice of canvas and resulting graffiti art.
Graffiti As A Witness And A Resource On Urban Development
Perhaps the connotation is inseparable when, as a mode of expression, graffiti capitalizes on visibility intending notoriety. The choice of venue typically answers to both while the transgression is undeniable and often meant to evoke a reaction to its anonymous protest. Graffiti compels judgment by being illegally introduced in public space.
Those charged with the correction see it as visual pollution while the graffitist knows his masterpiece is transitory. Does this, then, encourage the declamatory pronouncement? Graffito, after all, is the Greek term for “writer.” These illicit headlines have taken on aesthetic and pictorial aspects that certainly give the viewer pause. Would not the gaze alone answer the question as to whether graffiti is art?
Society is a collective. The artwork most graffiti writers broadcast is not thought out on any basis of preservation. The impact is a blast, a call, a statement against the conformities that impinge their freedoms while knowing it will not last. It does not stop them from addressing the collective directly to make their feelings known.
Are Graffitists Clueless As To What Their Actions Leave Behind
Despite the advice being that of removing graffiti as soon as possible, there are health and safety, environmental and regulatory concerns building managers and owners must be mindful of. Further, the goal is to have a method of removal that does not cause damage to the existing structure. Finally, there is considerable expense involved in the required training and the necessary surface preparation tool to remove graffiti.
Graffitists caught in the act of creating “art” end up being charged with vandalism. They are fined and ironically required to perform the community service of cleaning up graffiti. Considering the definition of graffiti under the law is the act of deliberate destruction or damage to public or private property answers the question posed here
When you add everything up, the simple crime committed by graffiti artists has significant repercussions. When it comes to considering whether graffiti is art or vandalism really depends on the burden placed upon those who must contend with the cleanup.
—
This content is brought to you by Brenda Vollman.
Photo: Shutterstock
