Imagine walking down a street, and seeing graffiti. Why is it there? What was happening in some person’s life that made them graffiti what they did? Art is supposed to invoke emotion, leave food for thought, and have questions. Graffiti does just that. Graffiti is art in its rawest form; it probably wasn’t painted for fame, money, or any sort of recognition. It was probably just a genuine expression of emotion. Who is to say that is vandalism? Creativity should not be suppressed.
Graffiti is even a way to beautify the city and “provide career opportunity for the youth (Olivero). In “Graffiti Is a Public Good, Even As It Challenges the Law” by Lu Olivero, he discusses how graffiti has provided career opportunities for Rio De Janeiro youth. This opportunity has given the youth a chance to acknowledge that crime is a breakable cycle, and that art is a fantastic way to express locked-up emotions. This proves that graffiti can do some good and lower crime rate. On the contrary, in “It’s Always Vandalism” by Heather MacDonald believes that “there is nothing progressive about … graffiti.” MacDonald would argue that graffiti is childish and represents the city having a lack of control, but in a way graffiti is a fantastic method of regaining control of one’s emotions and mental state.
Graffiti is starting to be recognized by art museums, and other sources as a legitimate art form. Opposing sources would say that graffiti is still vandalism because the museums that celebrate graffiti wouldn’t let their establishments “be defaced for even one minute” (MacDonald). In “Legal Venues Celebrate Graffiti as an Art Form” by Eric Felisbret, there are two categories of graffiti: “bombing”, which is vandalism, and “burning” which is artistic. The key difference is consent. Bombing is attempting to “tag” as many places as possible; which is just reckless and inappropriate. Whereas burning is done with permission and is art, typically a mural. Graffiti should be celebrated as art when there is permission. If no line is drawn then places like private property, & historical landmarks are at risk for ruin.
Graffiti is art because it is a way to make an artistic statement that can tell a story. Lady Pink provides the perspective on graffiti from an artist that lives in an urban area in “Graffiti Is Young, Cool, Creative — Let It Happen”. She believes that “graffiti is inspiring”. She would also “rather see the creative outpouring of our youth on the walls instead of the billboards and advertising” (Pink). Graffiti is unique in how it breaks the mundane look of the everyday city. Graffiti can be empowering for the artist because they feel heard, and known, and that they are leaving a mark. It could also impact those who view it. Graffiti, like traditional art, can still evoke pain or inspire change. Art “helps people make a statement” and “this is one of the main purposes of art” (Jefferson). The only key difference is that graffiti is on a “train car in lieu of a canvas” (Jefferson).
Graffiti matters because it is an artform often ridiculed and outcast by society. Graffiti is a great way to anonymously put ideas out into the world, yet it is still not socially acceptable. Of course, there still has to be limitations, like historical landmarks, and private property. There should still be places where it is accepted. In closing, graffiti has value as art, but still must maintain some restrictions.
