Graffiti: expressive art or plain vandalism?

I struggle to find a clear answer to this question. As someone who enjoys art, when I see a picture or image that has been executed with skill my first reaction tends to be one of admiration........although I doubt I would be so admiring if it was plastered all over my property. This is where society can be hypocritical, so long as its not happening in your back yard, one can turn a blind eye. An article from the BBC shows two opposing views on graffiti where their opinions are very black and white, but even after reading it, I still find it a bit of a grey area.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4946378.stm


I don't think all types of graffiti fall into one category. You've got the irrelevant scribble you see sprayed on bus stops and under bridges such as 'dave woz ere' 2010,' (you know the sort) or messages to reflect status from rival gangs. But then there is graffiti that looks more like expressive art, that may have a message of substance to comment on politics or on society as a whole.



I think there is a big gap between the two ends of the scale. While on holiday in Rome, I saw someone had sprayed a few words in black spray paint on a small section of the colloseum, which to me is downright disrespectful and unnecessary. Not long after this I read an article on 'Banksy,' the 'British street artist.' With his hidden identity and ability to carry out his work without being caught he has become an outlaw, and like many outlaws I found myself actually quite liking him, hoping the police never track him down! However, if his work wasn't so impressive, I doubt he would have gained such a large following and would instead be brushed off as another petty criminal.


The subject causing the conflicting opinions on graffiti is quality. The same offense is being commited here but because one is more artistic than the other it is accepted, even more so when you recognize the "artists" name, it becomes credible.


This begs another question of how society works: when an individual is in the public eye and their 'bad behaviour' is exposed, the saintly reputation they have worked their whole life to build is usually tarnished for the rest of their life - Tiger Woods anyone?! But when someone such as Banksy, who goes against the natural order of things, who rebels against society, who doesn't pretend to be innocent, they are given the opposite reception. Maybe it's because people are slightly envious of someone who can be so talented, such a rebel and unafraid to show the world, whatever the consequences.....but that's another blog entirely.