Illegal Creativity

I believe grafitti is both a form of art, and a form of valdilism. It being vandilism does not disqualify it from being art. It is often use to display political or other important messages on buildings, structures, or other public spaces. Becuase of this, it is capable of being both vandalism and art.

Graffiti often taking place on private property gives it a bad reputation. Because of this, many don’t consider it to be respectable form of art. “If it wasn’t for the fact that most graffiti is placed on private property without the owner’s permission, then it might be more recognized as a legitimate form of art.” (Is graffiti art) This shows that if it wasn’t for the location of the art, more people would consider it a respectable form. Many people already consider graffiti to be a legitimate art form the location is what makes it controversial. For example adding grafitti onto the front of a store would be considered vandilism and illegal. Meanwhile if you do the same thing but at your own house than it is considered art dispite the two being the same. This is because art is tied to your intentions, for example if you painted a sidewalk with the intentions of making a hateful comment then its not art. If you paint a side walk with the intention of making it look really pretty than it is art.

There is no differance between graffiti and other forms of art. “George C. Stowers wrote that based on aesthetic criteria, graffiti has to be considered an art form.” (Is graffiti art) If it is considered art by every standpoint and characterstic than why couldnt it be deemed art?

Its impact on propaganda is a good indicator that its art, people expressing themselves in symbolic ways by creating an image is art, “Graffiti has always been somewhat political, but it has come a long way from simply tagging one’s name to parodying world leaders to make a statement.” (Is graffiti art). Because people use graffiti for propaganda and political messages and artistic propaganda is still considered art, its only logically to consider it art too because its tied to your intentions like mentioned before. Hypothetically If you drop a bucket of paint on a canvas its not art, but if you drop the paint on the canvas with the intention of creating somthing then it is considered art, suggesting that its more about if you created it with that in mind.

There’s some arguement against this, for example its effect on crime is a common arguement against it. They claim that because its illegal its morally wrong or hurtful. I can undestand that if it actually effected if graffiti is art or not, the legality of som’thing is seperate from what it is. For example if you made a beautiful painting but its deemed illegal, it doesnt make it not a painting. The statement “The messages have also evolved. Graffiti has always been somewhat political, but it has come a long way from simply tagging one’s name to parodying world leaders to make a statement.” (Is graffiti art) shows that its also not a black and white topic, there are varying levels of art and intention which can change the outcome of my awnser.

“Graffiti, Market St” by Salim Virji is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.