Graffiti- Vandalism or art?
Graffiti comes in all different form and places. Its increase in popularity has led to controversial debates as to whether graffiti is art or vandalism. I researched the views of people who think that graffiti is art and who think that graffiti is vandalism. Many people said that graffiti must be art, because graffiti carries a message. Art is made to spread a message, so if graffiti does the same thing, then it must be a form of art. An example of this is the graffiti artist, Banksy, who spreads political and social messages through his graffiti all around the world.
This got me thinking that maybe the message of the graffiti is what defies whether the graffiti is vandalism or art. This means that if someone has spray painted a message on the wall which is a gang tag, like in fig 2 or a message that may only mean something one person, then it is not art. This is because it is not spreading a social or political message. It has no real meaning. But if someone has created an image or words that have been placed there to spread a global message, like Banksy does, then it is a form of art, because art is a creative way of spreading a message.
Another way that people decide whether graffiti is art or vandalism, is whether it looks admirable and pleasing to the eye. Some people who said that graffiti is sometimes art, and sometimes vandalism, said that they judged it on how to the graffiti looks. So, if the graffiti looked something like graffiti in Camden Town in fig 1, people would call it art. This is because clearly a lot of time and care has been put into it to make it look like something you might see in a gallery. This contrasts with the image fig 2, which is clearly not made to be art, but made to vandalise the bus shelter. This is vandalism. This leads on nicely to my next point.
Graffiti can be looked at as vandalism or art depending on where it is placed. Some people think that graffiti is art is it is in a suitable place, or in a place where it is allowed to be, e.g. the Southbank skate park fig 3, which is full of graffiti which many people think looks great. Some people think that graffiti is vandalism, if it is in a place where it is not allowed to be e.g. like a bus stop in fig 2. Some people may argue that the point of graffiti is to be in a place where it is not supposed to be, because this way it stands out to more people and is more likely to spread a message, like Banksy's graffiti around a phone box on a private building in Cheltenham in fig 4.
Overall, I think that graffiti is art depending on the point of the graffiti. For graffiti to be art, I think it must have a purpose and it must look good. As long as it is trying to spread a message in a creative way, it does not matter where it is, because by spreading a message in a way that looks aesthetically pleasing, makes it a piece of art. Hannah Davis
I find this topic so interesting, it's a really tough call as to whether it's art or vandalism, especially when it comes down to the aesthetic of it, which is so often subjective. I think you've touched on something really important though, the sociopolitical message it carries. Even tags may carry a message, sometimes surrounding territory, but this message isn't aimed at the public, more perhaps at a specific subculture of society. Personally, I think graffiti is a great means of expression when it is done in the right place and that there should be more designated spaces for graffiti. I think that tagging is often thoughtless, whereas a stencilled piece has more thought going into it, and therefore may be more likely to be done in a designated area, (or, if subversive, in a politically contentious area). I suppose it really boils down to personal opinion, much like the question 'what is art', which can be considered in light of graffiti too...