Arguments

Isn’t “Graffiti” Art?

Efforts are continually made by particular segments of society and culture to frame the issue of spray-paint vandalism as valid artistic expression, and it’s even sometimes conflated with the concept of public art. That notion is pretentious nonsense intentionally designed to muddy the true nature of spray-paint vandalism: aggression, dominance, and destruction. Spray-paint vandalism is certainly not public art. In a broad common sense, public art is some kind of creative expression on one’s own property or some kind of creative expression that has been legally commissioned for someone else’s property—public or private. As an organization, we believe in and encourage public art. However, we do not believe in vandalism—the altering of private and public property without the owner’s permission. The moral context is what primarily differentiates spray-paint vandalism from public art: vandalism is done to someone’s property without permission, and public art is done to someone’s property with permission.

The creative context also differentiates public art from vandalism. Public art is often done to beautify a space, to challenge a viewer’s perception, or even, in some cases, to deliver a subversive perspective, but whatever the case, public art almost always possesses some sort of significant meaning. Spray-paint vandalism, on the other hand, is usually insignificant in meaning. Even when done with some kind of sophisticated illustrative technique, the overwhelming majority of spray-paint vandalism is an expression of selfish anti-social aggression and dominance and is used as a weapon in intentional social destruction. Just because a person expresses something, that expression isn’t automatically art—expressions of hatred, for example, are commonly not thought of as art. And just because someone uses a tool normally used by actual artists (that is, a spray-paint can) does not automatically make that person an artist or what they do with that tool art. There are, of course, rare examples of spray-paint vandalism that do have expressive significance (such as Banksy), but those instances are so rare that it is not worth normalizing the onslaught of visual garbage and visual chaos that is enveloping our communities. To allow all spray-paint vandalism to be tolerated to account for the .01% of vandalism that has some kind of expressive significance is disproportionately absurd.

But as you can see, the creative context of this issue can quickly become murky and can be grossly manipulated by those who want a set of excuses to vandalize. Those who discuss the creative context of spray-paint vandalism often intentionally eliminate the moral context from the discussion. Therefore, as an organization, we ultimately believe that the central issue of spray-paint vandalism when addressing it in the court of public opinion is not about whether or not it is art but about whether it’s moral. It’s about whether someone has the right to alter—indeed, deface—someone else’s property. The central issue of spray-paint vandalism is a simple, moral one: if you don’t own the property, you can’t alter it.

Even one of Maryland’s major creative epicenters, the Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA), does not condone vandalism. According to their website, MICA “considers defacement of public or private property to be vandalism, not artwork” and that they are “strongly opposed to graffiti and other forms of vandalism.” MICA, however, is strongly supportive of public art, as is Maryland Citizens Against Vandalism (MCAV).