GraffitiArt or Vandalism?

The debate over whether graffiti should be considered art or vandalism has been ongoing for decades. Proponents of graffiti argue that it is a valid form of self expression and a legitimate art form, citing famous examples like Banksy and Jean-Michel Basquiat who have gone on to have successful careers as artists. However, others argue that graffiti often involves the unauthorized alteration of property, causing damage and inconvenience to the owners. An important consideration in this debate is intent: while some graffiti is created with malicious intent, others may simply be forms of public commentary or expressions of creativity. In these cases, it could potentially be considered both vandalism and art. Ultimately, the designation of graffiti as either art or vandalism may depend on individual circumstances and personal perspective. It is the claim of this paper, however, that unless the proprietor of the building or property gives permission for the property to be used for graffiti, graffiti must be considered an act of vandalism.

The act of spraying paint onto buildings or public property without the owner's consent is often referred to as "graffiti," but this term can be misleading. While some may argue that graffiti has cultural or artistic value, it is important to examine the intention behind the act. In most cases, graffiti is created for personal expression without regard for the owner of the property being defaced. Therefore, it can accurately be classified as vandalism - a criminal offense that not only damages property, but also lowers the aesthetic appeal and therefore potentially the value of a community. There have been attempts to legitimize graffiti by allowing specific designated areas where individuals can freely express themselves through murals and art displays, but this does not change the fact that graffiti on private property without consent is an act of vandalism.

One of the best arguments for always considering graffiti to be an act of vandalism is the question of property rights. When someone vandalizes a surface by...…graffiti is by definition still a form of vandalism. The definition of vandalism is the action of deliberately destroying or damaging public or private property. If a graffiti artist does not have permission to deface the property with his art work, then he is committing vandalism. Whether it is Banksy spray painting an image or someone else does not matterthe fact is that no graffiti artist has permission to put up graffitiand if the artist does then it is not graffiti. When graffiti is done without the permission of the property owner, it is technically-speaking vandalism. Graffiti damages the property, and it can be difficult to remove. In addition, graffiti can be disruptive to the community and can create an eyesore. For these reasons, graffiti has to be seen as a form of vandalism, regardless of who painted it or why. In the end, it is about taking someone elses property and using it for ones own canvas. It is essentially theft of someone elses property…