Morality of Graffiti

Graffiti

Graffiti in its rawest form is a form of art. We as humans have a yearning to express ourselves in multiple ways., one of those being the beauty of art. The most essential part of the arctic process understands that art is subjective and every person will interpret its meaning and intention in a different manner. This is the fundamental principal to any art, rendering the argument on whether graffiti is a form of art or not irrelevant. If someone deems graffiti to not be art they are as correct as someone who sees it as art. With this being stated I align myself most closely with the opinion of Perspective three and a some aspects of perspective two and view perspective one as a close minded and arrogant perspective.

Perspective one gives us the view of a privileged group, who views the actions of graffiti as something, which has no art value and is only a nuisance. The people doing the graffiti are most likely not white upper class white men. They are people of color in the projects who are severely disadvantaged. These people do not have the money or recourses t buy a big canvas along with high quality paints to create their works of art. They must resort to using anything they can find in order to express themselves. The source and meaning of what they are intending to express is irrelevant to the argument. If a person of color who lives in a lower class area resorts to grafting something, which promotes gang activity, it should not be called “at its worst”. This may be the first persons definition of the worst but in the eyes of the artist it is “at its the best”. This shows how the first person lacks perspective on the lives of the people doing the graffiti, it is art to them and if the way that they express it is through gang tags the first person has no right to call that form of art not art simply because they are used to a more privileged form of art, which is hung on a museum wall with pretty lights. The person doing this graffiti does not have the privilege painting like the first person, he uses what materials he has to become an artist and uses whatever he can find as his canvas. If that canvas is something that the first person deems as inaporpriate, it is only because he/she lacks a set a values and a perspective on the disadvantages of the graffiti artist.

The second and third perspectives offer a more rational and insightful look into the mind of the graffiti artist. They both acknowledge that we as humans have a yearning to express ourselves, whether that be through art or though song, that yearning is there. Perspective three is the one with which I most closely relate to. We both agree with the proposition that art is subjective. We agree that the art is a museum which is protected by guards and is held in high regard by the privileged upper class, is not better in any regard to the art on a bridge in in the inner city. We both that this type of art is an essential part of these people culture. We agree that someone intruding on this deeply protected form of art and calling it a “nuisance” is not appropriate or respectful of this persons culture. I will grant the first person that grafting on someone else’s property may not be the most appropriate to do. At the same time I also support the right of these graffiti artists to be able to show their art by whatever means necessary. If this means that one must graffiti on the side of a bridge at two in the morning to not be caught by the police, then it is permissible in my world view. Both these perspectives and I are in agreement that art is a human right and it is in our nature to express ourselves, while at the same time a privileged person view on how art should be interpreted does not trump a disadvantaged persons view on how art should be expressed or interpreted.