Running Head: ART OR CRIME
Art or Crime: Controversy of Graffiti
Jacqueline Paglino
Molloy College
Art or Crime: Controversy of Graffiti
New York is known for so many different museums with historical art seen as paintings, sculptures and artifacts, as well as modern art that may represent the emotions the artist is trying to provoke. Art has always had controversy surrounding it over the years, as more risky techniques were trialed. Artists such as Picasso, who really started the modern art movement, took a while to catch on and gain the respect that earlier artists received. Similar controversy in the 20th century surrounds the fresh youthful art come to be known as aerosol art, better known as graffiti. Graffiti is not a new concept in the boroughs of New York, an area dealing with crime and vandalism relating to tagging and gangs, but the notion of graffiti being seen as art is no longer as taboo as it once was. Graffiti artists nowadays are fighting for their place in society, all following different avenues of getting their name recognized.
Graffiti started in the 1960’s commonly in the New York City Subways. African American and Hispanic backgrounds began to use graffiti as a form of recognition among their peers, along with guarding their own territory. Tags were used to display a person or groups name. The more abundant the tags throughout the area, the more powerful of a reputation these people gained (Ferrel, 1995). The downfall to graffiti was that it was done on public and private property, both of which considered the spray painted letters to be vandalism. The fact that graffiti was illegal added to the danger of taking part in it. Taggers would hide in subways late at night just to be able to have their name widespread throughout the busy tracks. Since they couldn’t often tag in daylight, the nighttime acts contributed to increased crime in the areas, therefore explaining society attributing graffiti to danger and crime (Taylor & Marais, 2009).Nowadays there is much more controversy surrounding the idea of graffiti. Many people still see graffiti as destruction of property, illegal, and overall criminal. Others are starting to hold graffiti to a new light, and are not only considering the once criminal act as art, but are trying to figure out ways to have graffiti be legal.
Graffiti is starting to be accepted as one of the newest art forms. Not only are graffiti artists being used in advertisements for companies such as Adidas, Nike, Converse, and North face, there are also respected outside graffiti “museums” to go view aerosol artists from around the world (Currid, 2007). Two main places to see these legal graffiti murals are at 5Pointz in Long Island City Queens, as well as the Hall of Fame found outside the Jackie Robinson Educational Complex in East Harlem New York. There are even societies speaking out about the possibility of having a legal option for graffiti, and how the effects could be beneficial rather than detrimental to the environment. It’s thought that the youth having a legal option to express their creativity would allow for more young adults to become more involved in activities that could serve as a positive experience, and will keep them out of trouble (Taylor & Marais, 2009).
Graffiti over the years has also become a source of income for young creative aspiring artists. Many artists started using graffiti, due to socioeconomic class, but with the new turn in use of graffiti in hip hop, pop, and punk styles, these artists now had an avenue to use this once deemed unlawful act as a source of income. People started to have interest in purchasing graffiti style artwork, and there were canvas works sold for over 20,000 dollars. The popularity of graffiti was transferring over into the fashion industry, where high end well known companies not only used the graffiti style artwork on their products; they also borrowed the idea of tagging to build respect and status by using their companies’ logos on the products themselves. Companies such as Calvin Klein, Gucci, and DKNY began doing this in the 1980’s and 90’s. People became familiar with the symbols that represented these companies and eventually seeing these “tags” translated to symbol of status (Currid, 2007).
So why when cultures are accepting and thriving off of graffiti is there still such controversy about its use? The issue lies in the regulation and the high costs of covering up the vandalism. Tags, or more elaborate versions called throw-ups, are an enormous expense for taxpayers. States can pay up to 25 million dollars a year to clean up the town from the commonly young males’ efforts to build boundaries, identities and fame from spray painting areas with no artistic intentions (Taylor & Marais, 2009). On top of money used to revive the environment, money is also used in program funding to help prevent this graffiti. Programs to do the complete opposite have also been tested in certain areas of the world. These programs allow for commissioned graffiti art to be done, in hopes that if they have certain designated areas where the graffiti art is allowed to be done, it will deter people from continuing to spray in other non-commissioned areas (Taylor & Marais, 2009).
New York City is home to the start of Graffiti, and New York as a society has seen amazing changes in their view of what Graffiti truly is. Certain neighborhoods have a strong cultural vision of what is considered art, such as in East Harlem which is highly populated with people of Spanish decent. This area is home to the Hall of Fame, which is a commissioned area for very talented graffiti artists to show their work. The area gets a new make-over with new artists regularly, but it is seen as an honor for your art to be displayed on this wall. This neighborhood respects the art of graffiti so much that the Hall of Fame is located at a school. One may believe that this town is trying to send a message to young kids that graffiti doesn’t have to be rebellious, and since this wall is so highly respected the kids learn the importance of working hard and being praised for that dedication. Others still have the ideation that graffiti is vandalism no matter what it looks like, and would frown upon having a school advocate for this destruction. Young children can be sent mixed messages, thinking that since their school says this graffiti is acceptable, then they should be allowed to do their own graffiti where ever they please. These opposing views both have legitimate beliefs and concerns, making the dilemma of how to react to graffiti in New York City so difficult.
Graffiti over the years has been related to crime and vandalism, hip hop and fashion, and even art. People in the 21st century who take part in graffiti have many different options of how they want to present themselves. They can use the historical tagging used to show status and make boundaries done illegally. They can use their talents to do graffiti on canvas to sell, use their talents for reaching out to companies for marketing ideas, or they can use their talents to start the progression of a new movement of legal graffiti, spraying murals on commissioned areas for all to see. All three of these different avenues for graffiti are still in use, causing societal views to range from disgust to delight when they think of graffiti. Graffiti art is slowly but surely gaining the respect it deserves, and hopefully one day it will overcome the stigma associated with its use and people can appreciate it for what it is instead of what it is thought to be.
Works Cited
Currid, E. (2007). The warhol economy: how fashion, art, and music drive new york city. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=WXkjT69Q2XwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0
Ferrel, J. (1995). Crimes of style:urban graffiti and the politics of crimiality. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 3(4), 98-101. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol3is4/style.html
Taylor, M., & Marais, I. (2009). Does urban art deter graffiti proliferation?. Paper from the British Criminology Conference, 9, 57-70. Retrieved from http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume9/wholedoc09.pdf
