Is Graffiti a legitimate form of communication? "People with money can put up signs ... if you don't have money you're marginalized...you're not allowed to express yourself or to put up words or messages that you think other people should see. Camel (cigarettes), they're up all over the country and look at the message Camel is sending...they're just trying to keep the masses paralyzed so they can go about their business with little resistance." -- Eskae How many paint spray cans would it take to write this on a wall? "Graffiti writing breaks the hegemonic hold of corporate/governmental style over the urban environment and the situations of daily life. As a form of aesthetic sabotage, it interrupts the pleasant, efficient uniformity of "planned" urban space and predictable urban living. For the writers, graffiti disrupts the lived experience of mass culture, the passivity of mediated consumption." - Jeff Ferrell, Crimes of Style The History of Text-based Art
No it is not a 'legitimate' form of communication if you're thinking 'legally.' I see it as a means of someone taking the risk of expressiing a message anonymously.
@Von Jones AND ILLEGALLY! Applying graffiti to areas not under specific private ownership, such as trees in a forest, is one thing, but doing it to privately owned property is Criminal Destruction of Private Property. Whether the issue of "destruction", be considered regarding painting slogans, gang-signs, profanity, or the like, is thought to be viable, the fact remains that most graffiti is destructive of property. Few "Artists" display their grafittical wares in places, or on areas, not frequently traversed by passers-by. If they confined their work to places where few saw it, few would be offended. IMO, in disagreement with the bleeding hearts pleading for remorse for the highly-talented artists engaged in this illegal activity, their activity is absolutely unacceptable.
No doubt about it @Frank Sanoica, I agree. I see this every day in my neighborhood were houses have been abandoned and the graffiti is done quite childdish at that.
Perhaps the worst response to wide-spread "tagging" was shown by Municipal leaders when we still lived in the Phoenix area. They passed a law requiring property owners to paint over or otherwise remove grafitti that had been applied to their property at their own expense! Typically ridiculous, when leaders helpless of finding resolution to a serious problem, lay the blame and "fix" on the very folks who pay their salaries! Frank
Worlds Top 20 Most Famous Graffiti Artists Whether they’ve reached the top as a result of their artistic ability, sheer quantity or a knack for self-promotion- if graffiti is a fame game these guys are winning.
I think most people will look beyond the vandalism and accept a creative message from a talented person. An everyday droopy pants tagger with a can of paint, not so much.
When we lived in Phoenix, graffiti had gotten totally out of hand as the city began to look pretty lousy. Not nice mural-type work, but rather gang zig-zags and obscenity. The fix? Law passed requiring property owners to paint over it AT THEIR EXPENSE! One of the reasons we decided to leave there. Frank