Is graffiti art? Driving (or biking) through Minneapolis, when I see graffiti, much of it is simply vandalism. “Tags” sprayed on signs, or buildings, show ignorance for property or work of others. Such graffiti, which only detracts from work, or “claims” work without any contribution – I see as vandalism.
Graffiti is defined as “unauthorized writing or drawing on a public surface” by Merriam-Webster. With this definition, I don’t see all graffiti as vandalism.
For example, Banksy, a semi anonymous British street artist, uses graffiti as a means of protest and expression. The purpose of his work is not simply to plaster walls with his name, but to create art. Much of Banksy’s graffiti raises questions about society, government or stereotypes. When used for such purposes, graffiti becomes more than vandalism (though it could still be defined as such), and becomes a means for expression – a way to achieve free speech for those that communicate with art. I don’t think that such an arguement would hold up in law, mostly because your rights end when you start infringing on others rights, but I believe that it is an accurate statement.
It’s relatively easy to gain large audiences with speech, and writing, but there aren’t many venues to “protest” with art. Obviously, if a piece is displayed in a gallery, people see it, but that’s not really “free” speech. Some graffiti, with gang, violent or personal goals is not an example of free-speech graffiti. Even “free” speech has limits – you can’t stand in the middle of the road, screaming obscenities. When you do that, you infringe on others rights to feel safe, be free from obscenities, etc.
To an extent, graffiti is necessary for some to express themselves.
