Political Graffiti As A Form Of Art

Russell L. Ackoff said, “Art inspires and produces an unwillingness for us to settle for the status quo and a desire for better” This quote can be used to help define art and what it should aim for in order to be called art. The Cambridge Dictionary (2019) defines graffiti as “words or drawings, particularly humorous, rude, political or on walls, doors etc. Public places. Graffiti as it is defined by government officials does not constitute art. This is due to its associations with vandalism and crime. I will focus on political graffiti. This includes graffiti that is intended to criticize Government policy, economic situation, or international affairs. Because it aims to incite political change, I believe that political graffiti should be treated as art. Although it might not be always true, it has been tried to suppress and labeled illegal by governments. It has also led to more urban decay. Although it is considered illegal, political graffiti has had a greater impact on social change and has been presented as an art form.

You can use graffiti to express your disapproval of urban injustices. Many working-class Americans were left behind by the US’s 1960s post-industrial economy. It mainly served the middle and upper classes and was discriminatory and demeaning to them. Many working-class Americans were left behind after social, economic, cultural and cultural change, particularly in New York. The rise of graffiti and social criticism against injustice led to a lot of social criticism. New Yorkers began graffitiing on subways in 1960s New York. Later, Hip Hop artists started using graffiti as a form of protest against police. This could be considered art, and its context meaning means that it expresses the movement of urban decay and injustice. This allows minorities to speak out and is a great way for them to get their thoughts out there. Graffiti can be seen as art, since it allows people the opportunity to express their wish for a better society. Governments can alter the meaning and message of graffiti to suit their political agendas. Austin (2002) says that New York’s highest authorities can declare graffiti a crime. If graffiti is heavily critical or contrary to their political views, they may do so. It has the power and ability to coerce large numbers of people into believing that graffiti with political messages is not culturally significant. They can dismiss it as vandalism. Iversan (2010) confirms that New York officials continue to use propaganda, censorship, and intimidation to keep graffiti-makers from spreading their message. In order to stop graffiti writers from creating more, they are publicly shamed. These governments also allocate large amounts of money to reduce graffiti. Brisbane saw $13.1 million in this regard between 2012 and 2016. These state-sponsored motions aim to stop graffiti being used as a political protest. It reduces its art value, especially in public spaces. Effective graffiti, such as New York’s, can be difficult to explore and devalue its art value. The state can decide whether graffiti that is political in an urban environment or street should be considered artwork.

The Government can counter that they are trying to reduce graffiti on political property. It can paradoxically encourage people to be better, but it is not possible to say this. Graffiti applied to private or public property can also be considered vandalism. Graffiti artists are able to make use of the fact that it is a form of art and has a purpose. Graffiti may cause urban decay to be more visible, which can detract from the message that the graffiti artist wants to send and could even lead to further action to remove it.

Many governments have implemented zero-tolerance policies for graffiti prevention in order to stop it. This is inspired in part by Kelling’s and Wilson’s 1982 broken windows theory. It states visible signs of decay are a sign that there is a criminal community. Crime must therefore be stopped before it escalates into bigger crimes. An excessive amount of graffiti can increase crime and make an area look less developed. This belief states that political art is less effective than it is in promoting political protest.

Libertarian Socialists such Noam Chomsky will state, contrary to previous statements, that graffiti doesn’t constitute vandalism. It makes authorities afraid, and it’s why graffiti is illegal. Chomsky claims that those in higher authority don’t want revolutionary art. It can help to examine the status quo and bring people together. By using graffiti to express political messages, they can distract from the real issues by directing people’s minds away. Powers (1996) argues in a similar fashion that graffiti’s novelty does not depend on its artistic merit but rather the context and the prospect it was created. Graffiti art was a window into the lives and times of inner-city communities, like the Hip-Hop scene from the 1970s. But, this subculture has tried to suppress graffiti art and impose sanctions. Accordingly, graffiti should not be considered criminal and should be treated as an art form.

How people see art is affected by the context it is placed in. Recent examples of political graffiti have been seen in museums (Jacobson 2017. The popularity and modernization in 21st-century graffiti has allowed the political meaning to graffiti to be more widely understood and taken seriously. Graffiti, as a form or political protest, has attracted a lot of attention today. Because graffiti artists can post pieces that aren’t defined by the government, they can also be scrutinized. Banksy, with his 6.7 million followers, has been involved in many forms and types of political graffiti across the UK. Banksy’s online graffiti profile has been a major influence on the popularity of political graffiti. However, it has also contributed to the commodification political graffiti art. BBC news reported that Banksy sold a graffiti painting entitled “Pensioners and bombs” for PS102,000 in 2007. The commodification and sale of graffiti art can reduce its meaning. For example, Banksy’s painting of ‘Pensioners with bombs’ was sold for ‘PS102,000’. The message becomes secondary and the economic value of the piece becomes the primary focus. This means that art should be considered art only if it has lost its true meaning. Banksy’s work and other popular art forms are often placed outside of context. This may not be the case. However, modernizing the display of political graffiti has made political issues more prominent within society despite their being neglected by the elite.

“The political clout that graffiti has… — its ability act as a criticism on existing power structures — is largely an indication of its illegality.” As graffiti is often used to express social or political meanings, it can be considered Art. My opinion is that the majority of neoconservative Government officials have effectively removed and reinterpreted certain graffiti’s political and social meanings in order to push their agenda, enforce social control elements, and avoid being scrutinised. It may seem that it’s not art. But just because it’s illegal or impure under state law, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. It is important to consider political graffiti art as art regardless of its label.