Is Graffiti an Art Or a Crime

In July of 2008 a group of London Graffiti artists were jailed for allegedly defacing public property. At the same time however their work was being photographed so that it could be displayed in a New York gallery with their conviction sheets asking the question "is this art or crime?" This is the perfect example to display the two opposing attitudes towards graffiti; some say it is a senseless crime whilst others would say it is self expression and art. In fact there is even debate about the appropriate phrasing for what graffiti is. The people holding the spray cans would label it "street art" whilst those who apply the anti-graffiti coatings and perform the graffiti cleaning would label it "vandalism". So which is it? Is it beautiful self expression that should be permitted or is it vandalism of public property that should be severely punished?

It is easy to see the argument from the point of view of the people performing the graffiti removal and the city councils. Whilst some graffiti may be beautiful it cannot be condoned if permission to paint was not obtained. If the city councils were to allow certain "works" to remain and not be removed then they would essentially be condoning all graffiti even if it is just a meaningless scribble on a wall.

On the other hand if graffiti needs to be commissioned then it takes the essence out the work. Most street artists who create large scale works are often conveying anti-establishment messages. These messages wouldn't have the same meaning if they were commissioned by the government. It seems more sensible that certain "works" are judged as appropriate. This would not only keep the underlying messages of graffiti pure but would also reduce the drain on taxes that graffiti removal causes.

The idea of judgment is something that is would help to distinguish street art from vandalism, however this idea throws up a completely new debate; how and who can judge when graffiti is art and when it is a crime? Graffiti is a topic of great debate and perhaps the lines between art and crime are too blurred for a rational answer to be made. The crime side of the argument appears to be the stronger side at the moment with recent estimates saying that 85% of graffiti is just tags and a further 10% is gang related. This means that only 5% of all graffiti is of actual pictures and what percentage of that is good enough to be considered art? No amount of leniency or control can satisfy everybody and so it would appear that the debate over graffiti will continue far into the future and is unlikely to ever be concluded.