Daniel F. Ambia
Art and Society
Blog Post 5

          Is Graffiti art? Are Graffiti artists... artists? The dictionary defines graffiti as the following: "writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place." According to the first week of class, artists construct meaningful images and forms, give form to their feelings and ideas and produce extraordinary versions of ordinary objects. Art contains the visual elements, lines, colors, value, texture or what the philosopher Clive Bell would call, "significant form." To answer the question concerning whether or not graffiti is art is simple. Sometimes. When a true graffiti artist goes about creating a "piece" they take their time. They create a rough draft in notebooks, meticulously craft the outline then debate over colors and shading. They create something that takes an enormous amount of creativity and is visually pleasing and stimulating, even the more "sophisticated" pedestrians would have to agree. The talented graffiti artist is still making a statement by covering a public space with unwarranted art, but it is in fact art. While they are still getting their name out there, they are doing it in a way that is aesthetically pleasing to anyone who can appreciate the talent and time put into the work.  On the other hand the people who scratch on subway walls or deface public property with scribble simply to let fellow graffiti artists or hooligans know they were there, I would not consider that art. I would consider that purposefully defacing public property for a smug adolescent satisfaction.

          In his essay collection, "The Gloom of the Museum", John Cotton Dana suggests museums have become "temples and palaces" to house art considered valuable and rare because of its age and social status of the previous owner. He believes art in our society has been defined by the personal collections of the wealthy. He believes museums should be made more accessible and relative to the public. He states that art in museums, "Relates itself quite closely to the life it should be influencing" (Dana). If this is the case I believe he would agree that Graffiti should be displayed in museums since it is relative to a typically disenfranchised group of the populace. I agree as well but I think it should be displayed its natural state. Hiring a graffiti artist to create work on a canvas would take away from the spirit of the craft. For graffiti to simultaneously serve its intended purpose and be displayed in a museum the art itself would have to have been physically removed from where it was originally created. Technically not a crime because the art wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. Of course this creates a voyeuristic quality to the exhibition if the work were housed in a typical American museum. But as an art graffiti has the potential to be enjoyed by the masses and therefore as a testament to this moment in time, should be preserved.