Is Graffiti, Art or Vandalism

Graffiti is just another form of art that is limited only by the critic’s morals and law. Graffiti is a part of art that’s culture has a vast array of different forms visioned by different people for decades. Graffiti changes in shapes and abstract forms taking on something or someone or a political statement of an artist’s desire. I believe that graffiti should be seen as art and not as vandalism.

For example, Graffiti is not seen as art by many people but as vandalism. I argue that it is a form of art but this depends on the type of Graffiti however. “Like all other artistic forms, graffiti has experienced movements or changes in style” In addition, there are many ways graffiti is used in art, mostly it’s used to create a quick, multicolored, complex piece of art (Paragraph 17, Dolan). Many places graffiti is found is on private property without the owner’s permission, this turns graffiti into a legal problem.

The way I see graffiti is that it is an art form for the younger generation of people. Graffiti is mostly found in alleyways on the side of a brick building, it is a local area for artists to do their work. Graffiti should be accepted, but only in some cases. “graffiti plastered all over his wall’s signs and dumpster, it’s not hard and may in fact, be art” Graffiti also has the side that is gang-related (Graffiti: Art or Vandalism?). This is a touchy subject in the discussion of whether graffiti should be accepted as art or a form of crime.

Firstly, graffiti should be directed toward the legal side and away from the illegal side that many people have a problem with. the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles is trying to spread the awareness of graffiti legally and how it should be recognized as a form of art. “this exhibition was to kind of maybe steer young graffiti artists away from doing illegal work and getting more excited about the fact that they could possibly have a real career in this.” I agree with the museum to try to sway young artists doing graffiti to do it legally to avoid backlash from anti-graffiti protests (Graffiti: Art or Vandalism?).

Graffiti has a place in urban culture and has been looked at as art from thousands of people, but this is not always the case. People argue that it is vandalism but I still don’t agree with that statement. Graffiti can be seen as vandalism but it is still art, since when did art have to be legal? “Any passerby in an urban cityscape has observed the colorful, provocative, illegal “eyesore” that is graffiti.” I believe that it should be done with the permission of the owner to avoid the argument of vandalism and to be allowed to be seen by the public whether it’s an eyesore or not (Paragraph 9, Dolan). Art is subjective and should not be seen as an argument to get rid of an art style because people don’t like it. Graffiti is a form of art and should not be associated with the term vandalism any longer.

“graffiti” by duncan is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0.