The argument of whether or not graffiti is an art is a highly discussed argument that has gone on for many generations. Some people believe that graffiti is a display of skill and should certainly be classed as art. Others disagree as they believe that graffiti can be rude, offensive and cause damage to property that isn’t the artists. In my opinion however, I believe that graffiti is an art. Although, is someone wishes to graffiti on a property, they must first get permission, as it is not their property. The artwork might look good, but you wouldn’t paint someone’s house a different colour; therefore, the same rules apply with graffiti.
The definition of art is “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power”. Therefore, by looking at this definition, it is hard to argue that graffiti isn’t art. Graffiti is most certainly an expression of human creativity that is shown through a visual form. However, this doesn’t excuse or give people the right to vandalise other people’s property. “Vandalise” is often seen as an over exaggeration as it means to deliberately cause destruction or damage to private property. However, no matter how beautiful the Graffiti is or how talented the artist is, the person owning the property might not like it. Thus, causing the art to be destructive.
However, there are also some circumstances where graffiti isn’t beautiful but just plain rude. Graffiti can be used to portray racist, sexist and other hurtful opinions in public on someone else’s property. This version of graffiti is also destructive, however, this version of graffiti isn’t art.
In conclusion, graffiti can be amazing pieces of work that property owners actually end up keeping. However, whether or not the graffiti portrays talented work is irrelevant when someone doesn’t want it on their property; as it is their property after all.