An Art Crime Oxymoron

Graffiti wall - Portland, Maine

Legal graffiti.

Sounds like an oxymoron, huh? But it's not anymore. Graffiti artists are now being asked, in some cases, for their decorative services.

It's always a little frustrating for me to see graffiti sloppily splattered across cement walls, bridges and even public landmarks. To me, this is defacing and vandalism of public property. For these reasons, graffiti has always arisen negative thoughts or associations in my mind. But after an online search, I find many of these pieces to be art.

"Most of the opposition to graffiti art is due to its location and bold, unexpected, and unconventional presentation, but its presentation and often illegal location does not necessarily disqualify it as art," writes George C. Stowers. Stowers is a student in an Aesthetics class at the University of Miami. I discovered a paper of his online in which he tackles convincing the reader that some forms of graffiti are art.

I feel that there are two forms of graffiti: that which is conducted illegally without permission and when a graffiti artist is asked by an owner to paint a building or surface. An article I discovered online tells the story of a Los Angeles graffiti artist who was asked to decorate the 10,000 square feet of concrete wall along the bank of the river. It was a public event and many families came to watch the artist. But once it was finished, concern arose among local politicians who wondered why the city should now allow a practice that has formerly cost them so much money to clean up. There was also question as to whether some of the graffiti was obscene.

The wall was whitewashed.

Graffiti is a subject that can create a great deal of controversy. The question I pose to you? Is graffiti an art or an art crime?

Jillian

-photos courtesy of http://www.graffnews.com/?p=761 and flickr.com-