What qualities does something need to have in order to be called "art"? Most people will agree that paintings, sketches, sculptures, and the like can definitely be considered art. Can you call graffiti art, then? Often, it's seen by the public as little more than an offensive nuisance found in dingy neighbourhoods riddled with crime. It is seen as a mark of societal breakdown, anarchy, and a sign that those living in nearby residences “just don’t care.” Personally, I think graffiti deserves more consideration by society.
I'm not saying the common perception of graffiti is unfounded. It's rather unsurprising that these anonymous painted messages are seen in such an unfavourable light, especially in the case of “fairly useless, or even damaging graffiti: stupid racist remarks, empty slogans, illegible signatures or comments like ‘Nick and Gloria sparkle’ ” (Boyd, 246). Because this sort of thing is seen everywhere, I think it taints the public view of the art form— and yes, I do think in some cases it can be called an art form. A lot of graffiti isn't stupid or useless at all— much of it is sophisticated and political. Alex Boyd (A Canadian poet/essayist, by the way) mentions that a lot of graffiti is probably created by young, poor people who have no place to call home, as an act of protest against home-owners and business-owners: “Those of us who are most opposed to it … can afford to own at least a home if not other buildings, and take offense to anyone who would stain it” (Boyd, 247). I think this is probably the reason for the association between low-income neighbourhoods and graffiti, and is also why land owners who are victims of graffiti refer to the creators as vandals. Sometimes, they go so far as to call their spray cans as weapons of destruction. “If it allows those who have less to be articulate, and critical of those who have more, naturally anyone in the better position will see it as a ‘weapon’ ” (Boyd, 247).
Think on that last quote for a moment, and try to put it into a political context. This explains why anonymous graffiti is common in parts of the world where free speech is limited or banned. In places like El Salvador, “graffiti becomes an affordable, accessible method of communication” (Boyd, 246). Is it still vandalism, then, or is it more of a demonstration against censorship, dictatorship, and closed-mindedness? Graffiti can be used to publicize political views or to protest against oppression. A proponent of free speech can't be opposed to this kind of graffiti, or consider it vandalism.
Graffiti is different from advertisements and signs in that it has the potential to be interactive and change over time. While advertisements are intended to be static, remaining the same until they are removed, there are accounts of full conversations taking place using graffiti alone. In Scotland, “a public debate had taken place entirely through graffiti … resulting in a permanently posted conversation” (Boyd, 246). Another account tells of a graffiti writer who “began work on a large piece one night but left before completing it when he heard a noise. He returned the following evening to finish the painting when he found, ‘Just Missed You – Wait Till Next Time – The Watchman,’ written on it” (Castleman, 43). The most important difference, though, is that graffiti, unlike advertisements, isn't fuelled by money. The purpose of the message is the message itself.
Graffiti can be interpreted in a historical context, as well. Interestingly, in the twelfth century, graffiti very similar to that found today was left on the inside of a tomb by Norsemen (Boyd, 246). In some contexts, it can be seen as a territorial marker— “territorial graffiti have an identical function at the neighbourhood scale, that of ascribing a proprietary meaning to space” (Ley & Cybriwsky, 504). Leaving a message like “Dave was here” in an alleyway taps into the same part of the human psyche as sticking a flag in the ground of some unclaimed land, the top of a mountain, or the moon. It's human nature to expand one's territory. Graffiti is seen by many as an effective way of establishing boundaries, whether personal, physical, political, or societal.
Again, I'm not saying graffiti can't be harmful. I only hope to show that it has the potential to be more than a nuisance with negative connotations. While it is commonly seen as a product of high crime rates and the breakdown of society, it can in fact be a product instead of human nature and cultural development. While some graffiti is indeed vandalism and has no real significance, much of it is a form of communication and art, and should be treated as such.
Works Cited:
- Boyd, Alex. “In Defense of Graffiti.” 2006. Steps to Writing Well with Additional Readings. Eds. Jean Wyrick and Sanka P. Bose. Toronto: Nelson, 2011. 245-248.
- Castleman, Craig. “Getting Up: Subway Graffiti in New York.” 1982. Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press.
- Ley, David and Cybriwsky, Roman. “Urban Graffiti as Territorial Markers.” 1974. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Vol. 64, No. 4. 491-505.
