A recent personal experience has led me to debate the societal effects of street art, or artistic ‘graffiti’ and if it has a valid place in the world of mass communication or not. Let me be clear from the start that by street art I mean something clever, beautiful or thought provoking; not gang signs or vulgarity for the sake of shock value.
Torn on the sensitive issue, I won’t begin to muse my own opinions but simply put forth two sides of the argument based on recent conversations I’ve overheard and participated in from different backgrounds and age groups.
First of all, lawmakers see street art as vandalism, disfiguring public or private property. But those who create it see it as a way to inspire their unique ideas to others in odd places.
The controversial subject grows deeper when street art is added upon, or drawn/written over, such as the recent incident in New York City where an anonymous individual named ‘the splasher’ splattered colorful paint globs over works of art.
Artists become offended. But how can one who presents their work to the public not expect the public to engage further in their ideas? Better yet, why wouldn’t they want that engagement? Isn’t that the idea?
Critics believe these artists are not only denigrating property, but are doing it for purely selfish and exploitative reasons. Perhaps it’s a little bit of both. However, I can see why street artists see a market for their art on their canvas of choice.
Because let’s face it, in urban areas where street art tends to dwell, like Chicago, New York, London, Paris or Los Angeles, not everyone goes on trips to their local downtown art galleries. Is this perhaps a way to inspire the ones who normally wouldn’t be looking for inspiration, yet they sit at a bus stop and see a sticker or painting or word right below a route map that makes them feel or question something. After all, that’s what art is supposed to instill: feeling.
Some street artists become notorious for their artwork, like ‘Banksy’ who made his work known throughout the streets and subways of London in the 1990’s. He was mostly known for creating comical anti-war, anti-establishment statements.
His politically inspired art was eventually seen in places all over the world. 10 years later, people began buying his art at exhibitions. So though he began working illegally he bridged the gap later on and members of the street art community were actually arrested for defacing his art.
Which brings me to another group of street artists known for what is called ‘reverse graffiti,’ a way of making a public statement legally through art. For example, art doesn’t always have to be written or drawn or painted.
Art can be a group of people on the street lying down, forming a word or sentence. Art can be painted on the back of an individual’s car, or a piece of anonymous advertisement. In other words, there are ways around committing a crime and still making a statement. And the possibilities are endless.
Still others see street art as a form of public evasiveness and an intrusion on their every day lives. Others simply walk on by, not noticing. But some surely walk by perplexed, amused or even touched by a piece of art they glance at on their way to work. Art that makes them feel something. Whether the effect is positive or negative.
