Essay Example on Graffiti: Defiance as Art, Not Vandalism

Writers know that Graffiti is vandalism. They do not try to make it look less of a felon. Despite all that, graffiti is now enjoying mainstream acclaim thanks to its renowned socio-political impact. It has done it through unconventional methods. If graffiti was legally acceptable, it may not gunner the same influence it does today. Thanks to its classification as vandalism, it has received international acclaim. It is seen as a symbol of defiance and not a piece of art. Graffiti is effective because it is bold; if it were not, it would not have the emotive appeal that it currently enjoys.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

On the other hand, street art is about beauty. Downtown Detroit is a hotbed of street art and not per se graffiti. The works attract tourists (Stryker 285). I doubt if a satirical piece by Banksy will have the same intentions, but it will garner the same interest accidentally.

The Oxford dictionary defines art as the expression or application of creative skill and imagination. The dictionary goes further to say that such expression or application is in the form of painting and sculpture. The intention is beauty and emotional appeal. On the other hand, it defines vandalism as willful destruction of property. Graffiti is any public display, expression, or application of creative or rhetorical skill in a bid to evoke social, emotional, or political sentiments. Following those three definitions, several questions emerge. Is graffiti art? Will popular street artists be interested in making legal art? Will legal art (acceptable by the mainstream and high-culture) worthy of street artists?

Such questions have controversial answers. The person on the sharp end of the knife will not want to listen to the obvious answers. For example, graffiti is not art per se; it is an act of provocation. It is an act of the controversial. Without its controversial sense, I doubt anybody would want to know about it. I doubt if street artists want graffiti to go mainstream. Changes in expression of graffiti tend to make it acceptable as a form of art, but graffiti writers do not intend to make their work acceptable to the institutions of art (Valjakka 76). If it has to display in museums, it becomes history and not a part of an active socio-political revolution. It loses its appeal and viral nature.

Street artists who want to contribute to the socio-political activism through graffiti care less whether people call it art or not. If they cared too much about its artistic value, they would paint it in a place where it can be preserved. They will seek permission, and they will express their intention to display their works in a certain location, but all that will ruin the mystical appeal of waking up to a mobile lovers artwork (Salib 2296).

If one were to rely exclusively on this understanding, he would conclude that street art is not graffiti. Graffiti is the act of vandalizing public or private property in a bid to arouse certain sentiments. Its art when it is legal. People in the high culture will marvel at the wonderful murals commissioned publicly for public display. On the other hand, graffiti remains in its realm where the message is greater than the possible value of art.

Comparing the Dialogue with Zhang's museum work shows just how far apart the two works are. Zhang expressed a message in his graffiti-the works were temporary, and none of the work is available because it was painted on buildings marked for demolition-but the legacy of the message reigns decade afterward. What about his other works featuring in exhibitions and museums? The impact cannot be the same. In the exhibitions, people appreciate the artists; they tend to acclaim the work (Wrest 66).

If one is looking for positive change in the community, the value of art is of secondary importance. The effectiveness of the symbol of expression is the most important. For example, the West Bank Wall by Banksy has enormous rhetorical value. It speaks directly to the policy behind the wall between Israel and Palestine. Without such a huge symbolic appeal, it would be just another artifact in the museum or the private gallery.

In its essence, graffiti culture does not want to be the center of the debate. If it were, we would see activism towards its acceptance as a form of art already in the streets globally. However, the acclaim is not in the signage, but the impact. Popular graffiti artists such as Shepard Fairey want to commercialize graffiti. In his words, Fairey says that his life is now about raising his family and children. He cannot continue to create graffiti for a social cause.

Many artists follow this conventional path. Sadly, none of the artists start with commercialization; they all start as vandals. The center of attention for them is the signage for every piece they put out there. Since controversy sells, they become popular over time. They then commercialize art. Artists such as Banksy and Fairey can put a 5-figure price tag on any of their items, and they will sell almost immediately.

There is also the graffiti world where crime rules. An irate teenager is expelled from school only to return in the wee hours of the night to spray profanities all over the school. It is quite familiar almost everywhere in the world. Graffiti is passion and raw energy. It is more of an urge to express something in real time. It is an attempt to shout at the things you approve or do not approve. In the morning, it can end up in the mainstream media or not, but it must pass the message across.

Graffiti artists must find something persuasive to accelerate the absorption of the message. They must also add various appeals that will help proliferate the message. Some graffiti writers do not want to associate the trade with art. One contemporary thinks that graffiti and art do not share the same stage. Art is in its realm, where acceptance is the norm. On the other hand, graffiti is meant to rule the world where vandalism and destruction is the norm (Wrest 3-4).

Powerful graffiti is not just in the imagery and symbolism; it is also about language choice. It is easy to spot graffiti crews with names such as Outlaws, Kills Until Killed (KUK) are common. It is also not just the names of the crews; the language of the writings is forceful even (Gopnik 114). Taunts and defiance are integral to the written work. When the interest is social, calls for freedom, revolution, political satire, and socially aggressive symbols are the most effective appeals. The choice is not accidental; writers want something that the audience will easily digest. Using symbols of commonality ensures that people instantly know what the intention is.

With regard to the audience, a graffiti writer will look for a "stick it to them" type of appeal. Zhang Dali intimated this appeal in his Dialogue. He was having a conversation with Beijing through graffiti sprayed on demolished houses. He hoped to ignite awareness with the residents (Valjakka 74). The artistic component of the work is minimal at best, but the social impact was tremendous. In his work west bank wall, Banksy is different from true graffiti where a spray can is enough to stick it to them. His work is thoroughly curated. The materials used are also contemporary. Banksy is a master of both worlds where art and socio-political influence combine to good effect (Salib 2296).

Further, graffiti is the only way to make public forbidden thoughts (Gopnik 113). In oppressive regimes and societies, a writer can use his or her skills to express those things that they deem excess. He or she can do so at the blanket of anonymity. Young artists looking to gain fame and commercial viability see graffiti as the starting point. The distinction between street art and graffiti can never be greater when you consider where both are displayed. Street art, though viewed skeptically, it is welcome in museums, exhibitions, and galleries. On the other hand, graffiti as a primary expression resides in the walls, buildings, and other places where only secondary forms such as photography can capture it. Besides, it speaks against the very authority and state machinery that fund museums and art galleries (Wrest 66).

Some commentators believe that graffiti is no longer just a tool for revolutions. In a way, one can say that graffiti has transitioned. It is bringing effective responses from both worlds. You can speak truth to power through graffiti; you can speak to an elitist crowd willing to pay over $1 million for the masterpiece (Gopnik 113-114). In revolutions, one paint can wake up a whole street to the call. In the art world, the money is simply too good to be ignored. For example, brand value for public works of Shepard Fairey such as Obey the Giant fetches tidy sums in the market. The same case applies to other mainstream artists whose roots started with graffiti.

As we have seen throughout this work, graffiti can be art-but the graffiti writers simply do not care. As long as the message reaches the intended audience, art is of minimal importance. That is the fate of graffiti such that artists to reach out to an audience with the hope of enlightening, awakening, or invoking socio-political sentiments want a headline-grabbing appeal. The message, symbolism, and execution are professional-artistic even.

Works cited

Gopnik, Blake. "Revolution in a Can." Culture, 2011.Herrick, James A. "An Overview of Rhetoric." A History and Theory of Rhetoric: AnIntroduction, 4th ed. Pearson, 2009.

Salib, Peter N. "The Law of Banksy: Who Owns Street Art?." The University of Chicago Law Review (2015): 2293-2328.

Stryker, Mark. "A Street Art Culture Clash as Graffiti Goes Mainstream." Culture, 2015.

Valjakka, Minna. "Graffiti in China-Chinese Graffiti?." The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies 29.1 (2013): 61-91.

Wrest, Ronald. Graffiti as vandalism: an analysis of the intentions, influence, and growth of graffiti. Diss. 2012.

Annotated Bibliography

Gopnik, Blake. "Revolution in a Can." Culture, 2011.

Gopnik analyses graffiti as a cultural product. He explores the historical perspectives of the works throughout history. He also presents a vivid pronunciation that artfulness of a graffiti piece is of nominal value. He also looks at graffiti as an exclusive act of tagging. In his exploration, he argues that the acceptance of graffiti as art diminishes its ability to change the world. This piece is important because it helps us shape the narrative that graffiti is strictly a socio-political tool. It is a self-conscious quest to speak to an audience unhinged. It also helps us shape the idea that graffiti is not an empty visual commodity that high-society can bid for in an auction.

Herrick, James A. "An Overview of Rhetoric." A History and Theory of Rhetoric: AnIntroduction, 4th ed. Pearson, 2009.

Herrick explores rhetoric in detail by looking at it through the lenses of history and contemporary usage. In this work, we see rhetoric appeal as an important factor in any expressive work. Graffiti is an expressive work whose controversy is ubiquitous. The article is important in this paper because it shapes the theoretical positioning of graffiti as illustrative art capable of persuasion. The paper also explores the social functions of the art of rhetoric. This chapter guides the author of this work to generate controlling thoughts about the artistic power of graffiti. The author will look at the rhetoric appeals common in graffiti but absent in mainstream art. It will also help the author understand the intentions of graffiti writers.

Salib, Peter N. "The Law of Banksy: Who Owns Street Art?." The University of Chicago Law Review (2015): 2293-2328.

Salib looks at all the legal perspectives of looking at graffiti. We argue that graffiti is not legally acceptable in its truest form. It is vandalism. This work is important in this paper because it informs the...