Graffiti: Art or Vandalism

Graffiti: Art or Vandalism?

                Graffiti is an extremely polemic theme. Opinions are divided, and there are some important questions to board. Is very common nowadays to walk, normally in the streets of big cities, and see a lot of different kinds of paintings in walls, monuments and other public places. But, in the end, these paintings are considered art? Or only vandalism?

                To answer this question another doubt comes up: What is art? Most of the people say that graffiti is art when is beautiful, colorful, and make the city prettier, and it is not when is ‘visual pollution’. But, who can consider something art? Art is, by definition, when an artist expresses his feelings. So, following this logic, graffiti as ‘visual pollution’ is also art, because their artists are expressing themselves. Graffiti is a form of protest, a form of discussion OR a form of express beauty.

                Another common argument is ‘graffiti is a form of vandalism when it is not allowed by the owner of the space’. So when a painting is beautiful and colorful and not permitted, it is vandalism? This contradicts the other argument. Okay, so graffiti is considered art when it is beautiful and permitted?

                I think that graffiti doesn’t have to be art or vandalism. It can be both of them. Can be art if his owner wanted to express a feeling, an idea, but can also be vandalism if is not following the law. In conclusion, graffiti is not something good or bad, it depends to the person’s view of good and bad. It is important to have a way to express nowadays, but trying to respect the society.  

~Cih