Street Art & Graffiti: Changing Our Perceptions
The ongoing issues and debates surrounding the nature of public street art continue to develop at the forefront of modern urban discourse throughout the United States today. Particularly, a recent situation in Chicago where a mural by locally renowned artist JC Rivera was painted over at a CTA brown line stop, despite being commissioned, raised a number of questions about the importance of art like Rivera’s in the development and identification of public spaces in large cities. However, this occurrence also invites the examination of another relevant and controversial topic: graffiti.
In the initial breaking of the Rivera mural removal story by the Chicago Tribune, it was noted that an anonymous citizen “notified the city’s 311 non-emergency center and reported the mural as graffiti, triggering a request for its removal.” Compared to the debate currently surrounding public art, the debate around the subject of graffiti seems much more one-sided as most people generally detest the illegal practice.
Public disdain for graffiti is widespread and vicious. Jonathon Jones, a writer for The Guardian’s culture blog, characterizes graffiti as ugly, stupid and “vaguely threatening.” On the subject of graffiti he writes, “it is boring and expresses a generalized contempt for community, kindness, and the weak. How can leftists like this stuff?” While these opinions tend to resonate with many of Chicago’s concerned citizens, a closer look at what graffiti is capable of, as well as the impact of some famous graffiti artists, shows graffiti can be positive, engaging, and even democratic.
Consider for a moment the famous international artist Shepard Fairey, most known his creation of the Obama “Hope” poster that stood out as an iconic image during the 2008 presidential election. Fairey has created stickers, stencils, posters, prints and murals that can be found across the US and the globe. His work appears in some of the world’s top art museums, from MoMA to The Victoria & Albert Museum in the UK. By all accounts, one would consider Fairey an accomplished and influential artist.
Despite this success, one major problem exists for Fairey and his work: he does not ask for permission when he places his art on public or private buildings. In this sense, and in the eyes of the law, Fairey is a graffiti artist committing illegal acts of vandalism. Major cities seem to think so too; since the start of his career in 1989, Fairey has been arrested over 18 times across various US cities for vandalism-based charges related to his works. In his 2017 documentary “Obey Giant,” Fairey reveals the city of Detroit has charged him with malicious destruction for his works across town. These are felony charges that could lead to up to five years in prison.
We see through the example of Shepard Fairey that a large part of the problem with graffiti is how it is considered illegal vandalism under the law. Vandalism is defined as “action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property.” In Fairey’s case, what exactly is being destroyed or damaged here? What is removed? If anything, it seems Fairey’s works breathe life into what was once desolate, creating and contributing instead of defacing.
In reality, the hypocrisy of labeling all graffiti as vandalism becomes readily apparent. The above image, for example, depicts a work by Fairey on an old advertising board in downtown Detroit. Behind this work is a commissioned mural created by artist Cleon Peterson. Peterson and Fairey have actually collaborated on work together in the past; yet, from a legal perspective, Fairey’s work constitutes vandalism in this instance while Peterson’s work is sanctioned. What is the difference between the two?
Of course, one might make the argument that Shepard Fairey’s work does not tend to look like the kind of graffiti that so many people detest, which contributes to a whole other discussion on definitions and the blurred lines between art and graffiti. Consider then another and even more infamous graffiti artist: Banksy. Banksy has garnered international attention through a mysterious presence and highly politicized graffiti across the globe. The artist most commonly works with stencils and spray paint, and also does not seek permission for where they place their work.
One notable aspect of Banksy’s work relates to how the artist advocates for graffiti and even incorporates his own work into existing graffiti. Banksy suggests to their audience that lots of graffiti carries messages and impact that has been subject to neglect and negative connotations by society. Suddenly, something that was previously seen as abhorrent and a nuisance now becomes worth hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. Certainly, the works of both Banksy and Shepard Fairey have demonstrated that unsanctioned graffiti has more to offer than most would have thought. However, both artists also contribute positively through their important yet unexpected role in democracy.
Democracy might not seem apparently relevant to the discussion of graffiti and public art, but both Fairey and Banksy’s works can be seen as mechanisms for constructive liberal democracy. Fairey’s works explore themes pertaining to government corruption, environmental degradation, and corporate greed in America, as well as positive social justice representations from feminist empowerment to racial activism. Banksy’s works also cover a wide array of subjects, including war, existentialism, critiques of capitalism and even censorship as it pertains to graffiti and public art.
Ultimately, both artists and their graffiti support liberal democracy through the controversy they introduce and the interpretations that follow. While some of our fellow citizens might find these works visually unappealing or inappropriate, it cannot be argued that they foster dialogue and force us to consider the perspective of the artist on the issue. In this sense, graffiti in the public sphere contributes notably to ongoing, overarching public discourse on the things impacting our daily lives, feeding these subjects new content and direction.
In fact, a common argument against graffiti relates to property owners and citizens wanting to avoid this kind of confrontation. Some people find these politically charged works divisive and instead call for more neutral or cohesive public works of art. While the call for unity against division seems enticing, it can potentially undermine the very foundations of democracy. If visual and artistic works in the public sphere only adhered to unified narratives and themes, there would be no room publicly for the debate and sharing of unique perspectives a true democracy should invite us to participate in and consider.
At the end of the day, the issues surrounding graffiti remain subject to our own democratic debates on whether it should be seen as a crime or a contribution. It is important to note that the argument in favor of graffiti does not mean to suggest property owners or cities should have no say in what is done to their property or how it is treated. However, those people who have a stake in the matter should step back and think critically about what to do if placed in a position where they get to decide the fate of graffiti on their property. Does the graffiti have a message you can interpret, and does it contribute to debate and controversy in the public sphere? Do the benefits of removing the work because of your own opinions outweigh the potential benefits to the public or the larger threat to democratic dialogue? The choice is yours: choose wisely.
