With cities across Canada adopting tougher laws, the question of graffiti as art is something that comes up on occasion. It is usually the case of a conflict between those who do it, who believe it's a freedom of expression issue, and those who own the walls, who believe those who make graffiti are ruining their walls.
So, first, is it art? Well, it can be, but only if the person behind it actually puts in effort. There are some graffiti images with artistic merit and which have clear effort put into them. A rude word or a halfhearted tag is not art, it's just a nuisance. An image that actually is fully formed and has effort and thought put into it can be art. There can be arguments made for the artistic merit of a lot of graffiti and the overall impression it gives an area. The style has been influential in other areas and some of the better graffiti artists have gone on to display in actual galleries.
This is why some people object to when an owner of a home or business paints over or discards a well known or well done graffiti work. They believe it's art, and they believe that given the artistic merits of the piece that it is somehow protected from the law. That leads to a lot of stress from the perspective of the owner of the place where the graffiti is made. They are often made out as villains by some graffiti artists simply by making their property look clean and well maintained. Even if the images have artistic merit, they are unwanted images, something which many of the graffiti artists in question sometimes have difficulty admitting.
Wanted or not, those who discount the entire style, or say nonsense like it ruins communities, an idea recently floated in the Leader-Post, are a bigger problem. While graffiti can be indicative of a community that is in decline, it's a symptom rather than a cause, as it shows a group of people with a lot of time on their hands and the belief that they can make it without getting caught. It might be unwelcome, but saying it destroys communities is attributing a cause to a symptom.
I understand, recognize, and agree with those who do not want graffiti on their property. I do not want graffiti on my property, even if it has artistic merit. What I disagree with is the idea that in order to justify not wanting something on our property we have to pretend that it's some kind of huge menace, when it really isn't. It is, at worst, a nuisance, and recognizing the value it has could help mitigate the problem. While it might not be counter-culture, plenty of these artists would be well served less by prosecution but by things such as art programs or services to allow them to express their creativity in a less damaging way, off the streets.
Graffiti also has a counter-culture component, something strengthened if there is a huge opposition. That gives those who create it an argument that they're pushing back against the powers that be. Recognizing it as something with potential merit that is still unwanted cuts that down, since it takes emotion and accusations out of it. Denying all merit just strengthens the resolve of the creators. Making it relatively mainstream might be the only way of reducing the appeal. Something one's mom likes is, alas, suddenly not very counter-culture.
