The Debate On Graffiti: Crime or Artistic Expression
Graffiti is found everywhere. People can find it on street signs, buildings, billboards, schools, etc. But is this considered an expression of art, or vandalism? Many artists can debate on this issue and claim that it is a way to express their art and show off their work; sometimes artists choose to do this to make an artist statement and send a message to society. On the other hand, it is not their property. Vandalism is considered an on-going issue because it violates state laws, creates an unsafe environment for individuals, and can result in aggressive/violent actions.
Some works of graffiti are filed under copyright laws; what this means is that even though it is graffiti, it can be under copyright protection. In New Zealand, for example, there are laws that are taken place under graffiti vandalism, tagging, defacing, etc. New Zealand Legislation states that a "person is liable to a community-based sentence or a fine not exceeding $2,000, or to both, if he or she damages or defaces any building, structure, road, tree, property, or any other thing by writing, drawing, painting...". Other laws consisting with the use of spray cans have also been in effect. The New Zealand Legislation adds that anyone who is under 18 years of age is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,500. To a few artists, they do not comprehend these laws and want to express their artistic values. This can cause an issue because it can also create an unsafe environment to others around them.
What artists sometimes do not understand is that their creativity can send an erroneous message to others. As an example, spray painting a swastika or a pentagram on the side of a building could affect others, causing them to feel unsafe in their environment.
When people view these symbols, sometimes it can send out signals stating that there are "gangs" or hate groups around the area. This can cause people to feel as if there is conflict or tension arising; this can also make individuals worried for their safety. During September 1988, a woman was kidnapped from a railway station and was murdered by both men and women who were affiliated with graffiti gangs. Many others continued to argue that this was just an act of "frustrated artists". But is that the underlying case, or can it result in further violence?
Graffiti can also begin violence, riots and turmoil; graffiti "crews", or "gangs", are mainly affiliated with these acts. These gangs want to protect their artwork; they post on buildings, billboards, etc. and choose violence to attack those who disagree. There are several incidents in which people have been murdered due to graffiti acts. For example, Michael Lartundo, a 26 year old man, was stabbed in his hand and arm when he began yelling at graffiti vandals who were vandalizing a wall behind his brother's house in suburban Whittier. NBC News also states that over the past two and a half years, three people have died in trying to halt graffiti vandals and a fourth person was shot when watching the confrontation, which occurred in southern California.
Graffiti vandals should understand the consequences that occur when making these decisions. Of course, it can be seen as a form of artwork, but is it necessary to do it under illegal circumstances? Vandalism is considered an on-going issue because it violates state laws, creates an unsafe environment for individuals, and can result in aggressive/violent actions.
Some works of graffiti are filed under copyright laws; what this means is that even though it is graffiti, it can be under copyright protection. In New Zealand, for example, there are laws that are taken place under graffiti vandalism, tagging, defacing, etc. New Zealand Legislation states that a "person is liable to a community-based sentence or a fine not exceeding $2,000, or to both, if he or she damages or defaces any building, structure, road, tree, property, or any other thing by writing, drawing, painting...". Other laws consisting with the use of spray cans have also been in effect. The New Zealand Legislation adds that anyone who is under 18 years of age is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,500. To a few artists, they do not comprehend these laws and want to express their artistic values. This can cause an issue because it can also create an unsafe environment to others around them.
What artists sometimes do not understand is that their creativity can send an erroneous message to others. As an example, spray painting a swastika or a pentagram on the side of a building could affect others, causing them to feel unsafe in their environment.
When people view these symbols, sometimes it can send out signals stating that there are "gangs" or hate groups around the area. This can cause people to feel as if there is conflict or tension arising; this can also make individuals worried for their safety. During September 1988, a woman was kidnapped from a railway station and was murdered by both men and women who were affiliated with graffiti gangs. Many others continued to argue that this was just an act of "frustrated artists". But is that the underlying case, or can it result in further violence?
Graffiti can also begin violence, riots and turmoil; graffiti "crews", or "gangs", are mainly affiliated with these acts. These gangs want to protect their artwork; they post on buildings, billboards, etc. and choose violence to attack those who disagree. There are several incidents in which people have been murdered due to graffiti acts. For example, Michael Lartundo, a 26 year old man, was stabbed in his hand and arm when he began yelling at graffiti vandals who were vandalizing a wall behind his brother's house in suburban Whittier. NBC News also states that over the past two and a half years, three people have died in trying to halt graffiti vandals and a fourth person was shot when watching the confrontation, which occurred in southern California.
Graffiti vandals should understand the consequences that occur when making these decisions. Of course, it can be seen as a form of artwork, but is it necessary to do it under illegal circumstances? Vandalism is considered an on-going issue because it violates state laws, creates an unsafe environment for individuals, and can result in aggressive/violent actions.
Graffiti has been a debate on whether it is art or a crime, that is a good point. There are artists around the world that present their artwork whether on paper or a building to create their art piece on a bigger landscape. I believe that artists can use buildings to do their artwork by permission of the owner of the building. But yes in other viewpoints, graffiti can be tagged as a crime. There is nothing wrong with expressing artwork on buildings but placing threats or vandalizing peoples home are not what creating art is about. It's about showing what creations people can make. I'm surprised on how there are people that get killed by graffiti gangs all because they were a witness of the crime the vandals caused. Hopefully this issue can be solved sooner or later.
ReplyDeleteIsn't there a significant difference from painting a swastika (hate speech) and Banksy's political speech, for example? Part of this is possibly determining "what is art" as part of the graffiti movement, and what is social commentary. I'm not sure I can define that term, but that would be up to a community to determine.
ReplyDeletePart of the graffiti movement is political and countercultural, too. I'm not sure those who break the rules care about the rules. So what does that mean? Often, the thrill of the risk is worth the consequences; other times, the message is more important than anything else.
The act of graffiti is simply of expression, whether that expression is positive or negative is up in the air for the individuals that do it. I am interested in the statistics about New Zealand that are presented, and if similar laws reside within the U.S. Graffiti can be used for positive actions, but as many would expect there is some negative that comes with it, as presented in this post. The incident regarding the kidnapping women was interesting, as i am curious to more recent stories within the past 5-10 years that have occured. Vandalism is indeed a crime, but factoring in the act of expression leaves the issue two sided. Some may say that the artwork side of it is good, and others would frown upon hateful acts.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that graffiti is a problem that is partly based on the lack of spaces to express art and the detachment of public property. Following this order of ideas, it should only be considered a crime when it directly attends to public spaces in an inappropriate way (for example, gratifies of senseless violence or hate toward a specific group of people) however, how is the punishment to graffiti regulate? By the kind of picture or the sizes of it? Also, the law has a preference depending on the person who created the graffiti? An example could be the scene that Justin Bieber made a few years ago in Colombia, where after a concert he started doing gratifies in the city and when the police arrived to arrest him, he used his status as an international artist to save himself. How does the law of U.S. react to cases of graffiti? Has there been any real change in these punishments?
ReplyDelete