Estupinan Andres Estupinan Fionnuala Griffin Composition 2 11 August 2011

Graffiti should be recognized as an art form Part I. What I already know Who is the judge in charge of deciding whether an activity should be considered as art or not? I believe art is the result of expressing yourself in a beautiful and interesting way and in on my opinion, graffiti meets that definition. During my staying in New York City I found myself riding the subway many times and I remember incredible pieces of work painted on walls that were as interesting as a Michelangelo artwork. Therefore I asked myself, why do some people think that graffiti is just a way of expressing rebellion and vandalism. In the past, the representation of nudity on paintings was an act that went completely against morality and was considered as an insane thing to do but what happened later? It became popular among the artist and then it stopped being something wrong. Perhaps we need to let some time pass by to actually start appreciating what we have in front our eyes? There are so many talented people out there that deserve to be recognized as the artists that they are but because of a false criteria that some people have, they never will be. For this reason I have a desire to research this topic and find some answers to the different questions that arise. I am sure that if the same graffiti were placed on a canvas instead of a wall, it would be considered as a great piece of art. It seems that nowadays art only belongs to museums. But imagine if Picasso were alive and he decided to paint on the side wall of his house, I would suspect that pretty much

Estupinan

everyone would consider it as art and forget about the vandalism argument. Graffiti can be titled as illegal when is done on a private wall without permission but that has nothing to do with wether it is art or not. Vandalism is not a valuable source for opponents to claim that graffiti should not be recognized as art. Part II. What I want to find out Graffiti is a topic that brings up an infinite number of questions to the table but this research is aimed at addressing the principle ones. What are the origins of the graffiti culture? Who were and are its principle exponents? It is also important to understand: How many different types of graffiti are there? And also are there establishments/organizations teaching this style of art? Is it profitable to be a graffiti artist? Is there a case study of a city that actually has allowed the Graffiti artists to express themselves freely? Also was there any controversial type of art in the past like graffiti that now is being fully recognized as art? And if there is the case, how did they overcome these barriers to be recognized as art? In order to give a balanced analysis, it is important to also research: What are the principles reasons some people do not recognize graffiti as art? Does the unauthorized usage of a wall disqualify something from being art? Does a definition of art depend on what the laws of a country allows? Or does art not have anything to do with the judicial system? The exploration and answers of these questions will give us the correct balance to affirm that graffiti should be recognized as a type of art. Part III. The Search In order to prove that graffiti should be recognized as art, it is first necessary to understand what art is and for that, two articles has been chosen. What is art? Article by the

Estupinan

well-known writer Leo Tolstoy and What is Art? What is an Artist? Christopher L. at SweetBriar College. According to the Britannica Online definition art is "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others" (The Arts -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia.) but how objective is the world of aesthetics? Who decides what is beauty or not? Tolstoy defines art by its ability to communicate, to link the artist with audience not for its ability to express beauty. According to Tolstoy Aesthetics values are defined by moral values (Tolstoy), which means that beauty is totally a subjective topic and it cannot be use as a criterion to define what art is. Instead, art can be defined as the ability of an artist to link with its audience through an artpiece. It is a major error to think that art belongs to a certain social class level; Tolstoy criticizes the belief that art is directed to a particular social group and declares that the misunderstanding of it can lead to decadence in art. The criticism and interpretation of art is unnecessary because any work of art is able to express feelings that can clearly be understood by everyone. Any explanation about a piece of art is inaccurate because art cannot be described by words. All this analysis of what art means has led me to confirm even more the thesis that graffiti should be recognized as art. It embraces all the characteristics that a piece of work needs in order to be recognized as art. It creates a link with its audience, it share insides and experiences that captivate human minds. Art has not always been what we think it is today, an object regarded as art today may not have been perceived as such when it was first made (Christopher L.) This is the

Estupinan

phenomenon that graffiti is experiencing, which seems unfair for the current artists who are not receiving the recognition that they deserve. But now I would like to explore deeper into the graffiti culture in order to have a better judgment on the subject. The History of Graffiti-Writing; Institute for Graffiti-Research (Mag. SchaeferWiery). Published 2001 in Vienna. Documented by Mag. Norbert Siegl. This article talks about the evolution of graffiti from its first days to how it became a global phenomenon. Graffiti took its first steps on the 60s and 70s; when young people start to fight over who had more tags on walls, tags are the writing with their own name or nickname. Philadelphia and New York has a big debate on who was the pioneer of graffiti and even though in Philadelphia were found the first taggings by Cornbread, it wasnt until Taki 183 , that the media became interested in graffiti. (The history of Graffiti) Taki 183 can be considered as a graffiti legend. He worked as a foot messenger in New York City and wrote his nickname around the New York streets. His tag was short for Demetaki and 183 came from his street number. graffiti is a vital part of their culture and without TAKI 183 and its media recognition; it might not exist today. (Arhontidis)

Of course due to the attention that Taki was receiving a lot of imitators appeared and started to follow in his steps. It became so popular that after some time there were no free spaces to write and the signatures sort of got lost between them. Then is when graffiti evolved. With the intention of differentiating themselves from each other some new styles were created making graffiti more complex and unique. Most of these activities took place on the subways, which of course made authorities angry. The MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authorities) spent over millions of dollars during that time on removing graffiti. They built security systems and ran tests to find a more efficient

Estupinan

solution to clean up graffiti. (The History of Graffiti) Due to the aggressive and violent campaigns that the MTA carried out, graffiti artists had to stop the subway painting but instead choose to do their act in their own neighbourhoods. By this time graffiti had caught the attention of the TV media, newspapers and even films and is the media who spread the culture reaching places like Europe. This article is really important for my research because it details the origins of graffiti, which allows me to understand part of the culture. Even though this type of art began as an act of vandalism, it has evolved to such an extent to become one of the most entertaining types of art. Despite opposition from governments graffiti has reached huge success, I wonder how it would be government support? Graffiti comes from the word grafficar, and grafficar means any drawings, markings, patterns, scribbles or messages that are painted, written or carved on a wall or surface (Graffiti Art) In the present day graffiti still has the same meaning but graffiti is also any unsolicited mark on a private or public property that usually is considered vandalism. According to the definition graffiti can be divided into three types; one of the simplest forms is that of individual markings such as slogans or political statements. This type of graffiti can be found anywhere especially in public bathrooms or on exterior surfaces and it is usually handwritten. The purpose of this type of graffiti is to announce the unconformity about various topics, without any preparation or difficulty to create.

(Political Graffiti. AncientFlounder.com)

(Political graffiti Manchester)

Estupinan

The second type of graffiti is known as tagging. It is a fancy looking drawing of someones nickname, which gives the writer recognition and prestige but without any artistic intention in it. Hip-hop artist and gangs, who are looking to mark territory and provoke fear among others, again without any artistic intention involved, also use this type of graffiti.

(Bronx, tncj.edu)
(Bronx, tncj.edu)

(Library.thinkquest.org)
(library.thinkquest.org)

Both the tag and individual mark have little or no artistic approach; this type of graffiti is disqualified as art because of its inability to link the viewer to the drawing. The last form of graffiti is graffiti art, which is the creative use of spray-paint to produce an artwork that is done in graffiti-style which takes a level of skill and time to complete. It qualifies as art because it has the ability to link the viewer to the drawing. Its intention is to communicate and share feelings and thoughts not only to look for recognition.

(Banksy Sniper Guy, graffitine.com)

(Australia, graphicsxone.com)

Estupinan

It is important to make clear that my thesis is aimed at recognizing this type of graffiti as art; tagging and individual marks are not included in what should be considered as art because they fail to link the viewer with the artist. In order to fully understand where the graffiti culture is heading, it is really important to research the principal graffiti exponent nowadays like Banksy. In an article written by Brian Sewell, British Art Director of London Evening called Banksy Biography we will explore the importance of Banksy in the graffiti world. Banksy is being recognized by the graffiti culture as one of the most important artists throughout history. He was born at Bristol, UK in 1974 and had shown its art throughout the world, mostly evoking social and political messages on them. He has managed to keep his identity unknown from the media, which has added some type of mystery to its artwork. Banksy has managed to put his work in the New York Museum of Modern Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Brooklyn Museum and the American Museum of Natural History (Sewell). Also in August 2005, the BBC reported that Banksy had painted 9 images on the Palestinian side of the Israel West Bank barrier (Sewell).

(Banksy, Palestinian Wall. 2005) Banksys art has gained popularity in the last years; houses with Banksys artwork are being sold at a higher price because of it. Another example of his popularity is when he

Estupinan

replaced the cover of Paris Hiltons CD at several record stores by one painted by him. The new CDs became so popular that there has not been any return yet. This acceptance among the people has grown in a peculiar way so much so that Bristol city council have decided to put it to a public decision if a Banksys work needs to be removed or not. (Banksy Biography) The research on Banksy lets us see that some galleries as the New York Museum of Modern Art or The Metropolitan Museum of Art among others has accepted Banksys graffiti work as art. The question inevitably arises: Are we still in a place to keep saying graffiti should not be considered as art? The case of the Bristol city council is a clear example of how graffiti is overcoming all the criticism of being considered vandalism and instead is becoming an attraction to the building and city. Of course with this evidence that many people and institutions are already considering graffiti as art, I believe there should no be room for debate. My next source is an interview done by PBS newshour channel with Caleb Neelon and Roger Gastman who are Graffiti Artist and authors of The History of American Graffiti Book. PBS: What are the Origins of Graffiti, its contest and repercussion? Caleb Neelon: Graffiti has been around in all different parts of the world in one form or another. People by the time they had walls they started to write on them. But when this combination of name and fame came together in the late 1960s in New York and Philadelphia was when it really exploited.

Estupinan

Roger Gastman: Graffiti art is bigger than ever and it keeps getting bigger and bigger, no matter what rules or laws the city creates, there will be always the new batch of kids that will go out to write on things. CL: We all that have that inner kid still can retain that appeal of what graffiti is. It just amazing the amount of line and colors that is on a public space and the whole How do they do that kind of factor. Graffiti is the Rock n Roll of Visual arts. It came from America and spread around the world. There has not been an American art that lasted this long, graffiti keeps going after 40 years and now that there is public interest in it, you have to capture that moment as historical. RG: Everyone will tell you a different answer, if their goal about writing graffiti is to become famous and go to a gallery or if their goal is to paint more walls or subway cars and just get better and better at it. Everyone has a different reason. Graffiti exposure to the Art galleries started in the early 80s and it was the the new cool thing to buy. The true definition of graffiti is that it is illegal, illegal art on a wall. Bringing graffiti into galleries or museums is hard to do, but there have been thousand of artist that have made that transformation of things that they learnt on the streets bringing them to galleries and still making their work as exciting. CL: There is a difference between working indoors and outdoors but of course it is a question of audience and the other thing is that working indoors brings some good things with it. You can make things like to earn more money. Your things will not been taking down by the weather or the elements, so there are pluses and minuses. Its always hard to get kids, young people or just anybody into a gallery or a museum, that is the constant challenge for them, but once you get the audience in, you need to present

Estupinan 10

them something that will catch their attention, and that is really hard. People will always see the facade of a museum more than its inside and well, graffiti artists are not dumb and recognize it, thats why they work in public spaces, to be seen by people. This interview gives us an overall view about graffiti and shows how there is no doubt that this movement needs to be recognized by everyone as art because it has been happening for forty years and it will be still happening a long time. What really caught my attention was the analysis about the museums and it makes total sense. Young people are not into museums because it is art from other times. That is why graffiti is really popular, because it is modern art. Graffiti represents what is currently happening and that is what makes us interested in it. Having presented much evidence in support of my thesis, I will now try to balance my paper by looking at a contradictory source ."What Is Graffiti | Graffiti Control Program." Is a document published by the City of San Diego that analyses why graffiti is not art and how it damage urban appearance. The City of San Diego has developed a graffiti control program, which is aimed at eliminating graffiti from the streets. This program relies on their thesis that graffiti should not be considered as art because it is illegal, damages urban appearance and generates crime, fear and instability. I could not disagree more with this article because there is no possible way to link art with a judicial system. The legitimacy of art is not a matter for a state or a court to decide. A judicial system can only get involved in the location or presentation of a piece of work but it does not have any power to qualify or disqualify it as art. Graffiiti is prohibited when done without permission of the property owner (What is graffiti | Graffiti Control Program) What if it is done with the owners consent? There will be no other arguement supporting the claim

Estupinan 11

that it cannot be considered as art. Therefore I do not believe it is a valid argument to disqualify graffiti as art. Graffiti is costly destructive, it lowers property values and sends a message that people are not concerned about their neighbourhoods appearance is what the San Diego Government claims. But again this is a matter of graffiti being beautiful or not, this is not attacking its art legitimacy per se. Not all graffiti work can be considered as art; in the same way not any drawing on a canvas can be considered as art. According to the Graffiti Lives Book by Gregory Snyder, companies like Coke, M&Ms and Snapple has used graffiti to add unique styles to their promotional campaign. Hospitals, health care groups and commercial art have also use this art to beautify and project a certain message to their audience. Business owners in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens among others have paid graffiti artist to paint their walls to attract customers. One of these groups is called Tats Cru or even Banksy that has developed its art throughout the world. (Snyder Gregory 101) This shows how a property can gain value through graffiti. This article is really important to the research because it has shown how the criterion to disqualify graffiti from being art is not solid enough. They present arguments that have nothing to do rather with wether it should be art or not. My next source relates diverses controversies that had existed against new movements in art history. The Censorship and Controversy in Contemporary Art, Sara Harrison. Relates controversies around art, which had happened throughout history. I am using this source to state how it is not only graffiti the one that has faced opposition. Art has always been a controversial subject open to discussion. Pablo Picasso when presenting Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, now on show in the collection of the Museum of

Estupinan 12

Modern Art in New York, replaced female nudity with what seemed to be a group of prostitutes. This completely sabotaged the conventional female representation leading to some artist to label it as primitive art, but nowadays it is considered such a great piece of work. Movements like Dadaism and later Surrealism are considered art nowadays and they have their origins back in World Word 1 when they started to protest against the war through art. Their artworks are based on the representation of the subconscious mind with

unexpected imagery. One of the most controversial artwork of the Dadaism movement was The Fountain by Marcel Duchamp, this same piece was denied the entry to the exhibition of New York Society of Independent Artists but nowadays it is considered as a masterpiece. Pop Art is other movement that suffered a lot of criticism as to whether it should be considered art or not. One of the principal exponents of the movement was Andy Warhol, who used everyday images to create art, as food packaging and celebrities from movies or music, such as the Ten Lizes (1963) in the Pompidou Centre in Paris. Pop art broke the boundaries between fine art and commercial art. According to the Director of the London Royal Academy of Arts "Artists must continue the conquest of new territory and new taboos" (qtd in The Censorship and Controversy in Contemporary Art). That is exactly what Picasso, the Surrealism, Dadaism and Pop art did in their corresponding times and actually what graffiti is doing right now. This article is really important because it shows how new movements have always been criticized and lets us understand that what graffiti is going through is a natural process of acceptance. Lets hope societies will realize it soon enough in order to encourage and appreciate graffiti. My next source is a criticism about governments against graffiti and show how a city can gain value with graffiti art.

Estupinan 13

In her article Is Graffiti Simply Free Art, Or A Crime? by Kristy Trinier, Public Art Director at the Edmonton Arts Council. It addresses the benefits of allowing Graffiti Art and question laws enforced by governments against it. Art should be for everyone is what this articles claims. Trinier criticizes how art nowadays is being set to follow a pattern in order to fit into the typical galleries, which of course makes it only available to rich people. Graffiti is also known as public art and it allows humans to express themselves freely in a space that is available for everyone. This is when the government comes in and starts criticizing it, claiming graffiti is vandalism and it needs to be erased from buildings. Graffiti sin some form has been present since the ancient times. According to Trinier this is a claim that graffiti is part of human culture, therefore the strategy should be aimed at how to redirect graffiti art to beautify our cities instead of how to eradicate illegal graffiti. Graffiti has evolved from just the tags of a certain group of people to mark territory into masterpieces of art works. There is an opportunity for governments to encourage and promote graffiti art by providing legal spaces for graffiti artists to express themselves in a beautiful way. A city could be seen as a cultural outdoor gallery. This action will have a direct effect on discouraging the tagging that does not bring anything positive to the look of the city. According to Edmonton Public Art Director it is essentially, quality versus quantity (Trinier 2). This article confirms my belief that governments should take a pro graffiti position and try to encourage it for the good of the city instead of enacting laws to eradicate it. There are cities that are renowned because of graffiti as New York or Melbourne. This article has helped to show how a situation considered a problem for many societies could be turned around to become an attraction. It just needs a change of attitude.

Estupinan 14 Part IV. What I learned Returning to the hypothesis posed at the beginning of this study, it is now possible to state that Graffiti meets all the requirements to be considered as art and there should not be any doubt about its legitimacy as an art form. This paper has investigated the history and evolution of the graffiti culture and the principle arguments against graffiti. The most obvious findings to emerge from this study is the already recognition of graffiti as art from certain galleries around the world where it has been exhibited. If galleries and museums have recognized graffiti as an art form then why should people still doubt it? The second major finding is the controversy and censorship that new art movement have suffered throughout history showing that there can be a natural delay in the acceptance of something new in the world of art. In general, therefore, it seems that societies have begun to recognize graffiti as art in greater numbers everyday, thanks to artists like Banksy who have been worried about the spreading of this art. People against graffiti argue that graffiti is vandalism and therefore it should not be recognized as art, but as stated in the investigation, an art form cannot be categorized as legal or illegal. Authorities might regulate where it can be exhibited and how to exhibit it but nobody has the capacity to disqualify an art form. The current study was limited by the small number of credible and academic sources regarding this topic. I believe it is due to the illegality of this activity in many countries that leads the artist to remain anonymous, in order to protect them from any legal responsibility that may arise. Considerably more work will need to be done to determine the percentage of acceptance for this type of art and its repercussion on youth behaviour. It would be interesting to assess the effects of graffiti on societies and how it can add value to cities. Graffiti should be recognized as an art form because of two things; first it meets the definition of art and second the arguments against graffiti are all about its legality and not about its art per se therefore I confirm my thesis that graffiti should be recognized as art.

Estupinan 15

Part V. Bibliography Arhontidis, Dimi. "Graffiti Legends The Artists That Sparked a Pop Culture Phenomenon Part 1." Feedgrids. 8 Feb. 2010. Web. 11 Aug. 2011. <http://feedgrids.com/originals/post/graffiti_legends_artists_that_sparked_pop_cultur e_phenomenon> "Banksy Biography Read Our Graffiti Artist Profile." High Quality Art Prints & Limited Edition Art with Free Delivery. Web. 03 Aug. 2011. <http://www.artrepublic.com/biographies/8-banksy.html>. "Censorship and Controversy in Contemporary Art." CSA.com. Cambridge Information Group, June 2002. Web. 21 July 2011. <http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/art/overview.php>. Christopher L. "What Is Art? What Is an Artist? INTRODUCTION." Sweet Briar College {History of Art Program}. 1997. Web. 04 Aug. 2011. <http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/artartists.html>. Sewell, Brian. "Banksy Biography." Entry Page. Web. 03 Aug. 2011. <http://www.briansewell.com/artist/b-artist/banksy/banksy-biography.html>. Snyder, Gregory J. "Graffiti Lives: beyond the Tag in New York's Urban Underground." Google Books. NYU Press, 2009. Web. 25 July 2011. <http://books.google.com/books?id=rF4S3h0sVu0C>. Stowers, George C. "Graffiti Art." Art Crimes - The Writing on the Wall - Graffiti Art Worldwide. Miami.edu, 1997. Web. 04 Aug. 2011. <http://www.graffiti.org/faq/stowers.html>.

Estupinan 16

"The Arts -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia." Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Web. 11 Aug. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/36405/the-arts>. "'The History of American Graffiti': From Subway Car to Gallery | Art Beat | PBS NewsHour | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 04 Aug. 2011. <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/blog/2011/03/the-history-of-american-graffitifrom-subway-car-to-gallery.html>. Tolstoy, Leo N. What is Art? Translated by Almyer Maude. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1960. Trinier, Kristy. "Is Graffiti Simply Free Art, or a Crime?" Edmontonarts.ca. Sept. 2009. Web. 15July2011.<http://publicart.edmontonarts.ca/static_media/pdfs/files/publicart/is_graf fiti_simply_free_art.pdf>. "What Is Graffiti | Graffiti Control Program." City of San Diego Official Website. Web. 25 July 2011. http://www.sandiego.gov/graffiti/whatis.shtml