Graffiti has often been an undervalued art form. Often seen as illegal, dangerous or defacing property it is more generally considered a crime rather than a piece of art which can provide a voice for the voiceless. Upon reading this guardian article , I’m starting to see graffiti in a new light. The article postulates on the discrepancies involved in the policing of graffiti. The example of Banksy and the artist Tox; Tox was sentenced to 27 months in jail following his artist display whereas Banky’s display in ode to Tox was immediately converted in perspex and protected. Who has the right to declare which was defacing property and which was making art?
Banky’s ode to Tox
Things that would today be considered graffiti make up some of our most important and revealing pieces of historical evidence. From the very first etchings on cave walls by our ancestors to political graffiti scrawled on Roman mosaics and perfectly preserved at sites such as Pompeii, graffiti offers a window into the society from which it comes. Graffiti is still a means of political activism.
Ancient graffiti
A modern example of this is perhaps Buenos Aires where
‘graffiti has been continuously harnessed as a tool of political communication, resistance and activism by citizens caught up in a cycle of military dictatorship, restored democracy and economic collapse.’ (source)
Far from being a stain on the city, the “urban art” has begun to attract its own tourism and is being utilised as a force for positive change. The attempt by the Argentine government to designate specific areas for graffiti in an attempt to decrease markings elsewhere is an interesting idea. An environment that allows for creativity to flourish. On the one hand, it seems a logical response to the problem and avoids criminalising the graffiti artists, however, in controlling the spaces available the principle of freedom and expression has perhaps been missed and thereby the purity of this art form is in some respects tainted.
Buenos Aires street art
Graffiti can be incredibly important for geographers to understand, it portrays a sense of community and of how a society is constructed. It speaks volumes through its markings. Ley and Cybriwsky’s discourse on graffiti has painted a rich picture into how the graffiti of inner city Philadelphia identifies the spatial, contextual, political and makeup of a city.
But this authoritative distinction between “good” and “bad” graffiti does not have a place in the rulebooks. (source)
Do any ‘rulebooks’ have the right to make distinctions between art? Mary Moore, the daughter of Henry Moore, claims that Damien Hirst has “set back art by 100 years.”
There are those who look down at things which are described derisively as “modern art” and consider it a mere shadow of the work of the great masters. However, surely nobody has the right to arbitrarily decide what does and does not have value. Each generation, each society will provide new forms, subjects and styles of art which reflect the zeitgeist of their particular era. If graffiti is the art form which best conveys the spirit of the age, who are we to argue?
References
Brown, M. (2015). Damien Hirst set back art by 100 years, says Henry Moore’s daughter. The Guardian. [online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/feb/27/damien-hirst-set-back-art-by-100-years-says-henry-moores-daughter [Accessed 3 Mar. 2015].
Cathcart-Keayes, A. (2015). Is urban graffiti a force for good or evil?. The Guardian. [online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jan/07/urban-graffiti-force-good-evil [Accessed 1 Mar. 2015].
LEY, D. and CYBRIWSKY, R. (1974). URBAN GRAFFITI AS TERRITORIAL MARKERS∗.Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 64(4), pp.491-505.
Creativity in action 