Graffiti: not always, not anywhere!

Graffiti: not always, not anywhere!

by giovanni ardito -
Number of replies: 1

Nowadays graffiti are considered as one of the most popular and interesting forms of art we can admire in our cities. Personally, the choice between art or vandalism is quite difficult. Defining a work of art, whatever it is, as vandalism is something I cannot stand. On the other side, anyway, I can say that graffiti do not always improve the aesthetical condition of our cities and suburbs. In fact, very often, they are not aimed to adorn these parts of the city, but only to convey a message. It can be a social or political critic or simply a way to highlight the poverty of a certain district.

 

Taking a look to the famous Berlin graffiti what I would say is: “Yes, graffiti is a form of art. No one  should judge them and people should be free to realize them whenever they want”. Rationally speaking, instead, it is quite clear that the Berlin example is not only unique but also unrepeatable. In that case, in fact, graffiti represent the expression of the population’s feelings and emotions in a specific and difficult historical moment. Artists wanted to express their sensations and their anger against what was happening around them. So the Berlin Wall became an artistic symbol of  social criticism and even today no one could dare to delete them.

 

Today, the situation is a bit different. I really would not  like to live in a country which considers graffiti as a crime, but it would be great if young people who realize them had the ability to understand when, where and why create these works of art. Covering statues and fountains with graffiti is certainly vandalism; using graffiti to smarten abandoned areas and make them more touristic is of course a great idea!


In reply to giovanni ardito

Graffiti: often a misunderstood art.

by sara duva -

I consider graffiti as a powerful type of art. When I think of graffiti I think of those beautiful and colorful artworks with a social meaning or simply which are able to evoke some feelings in people who observed them. Moreover a graffito can be a symbol of a city or a country and can transmit a particular culture or way to see things. 

Looking at graffiti we could probably change our mind and get an other perspective to see the world. This is the reason why I say that graffiti are powerful. Certainly a graffito has to have a sense and a context. For 'context' I mean a particular background in which is allowed to exist. Otherwise a graffito has no value at all. 

The line between art and vandalism must be clear: a graffito which covers abandoned areas or adorns some particular places has a certain value, instead a work made with no sense or aim, only disdaining something or showing no regards towards communal goods has to be banned. Often people used graffiti as a mean of criticism. This can be done but always in respect of the limits in terms of other's freedom. If a murales coveres some social building, museum or monument has to be punished because it does not respect the other citizens first and then the object itself as a product of another man. As Giovanni said, graffiting on the Berlin Wall are admirable because it is great a collection of artworks and cultural exchange. In that case the context  is perfectly appropriate and I remember when I came to visited it made me feel completely immersed in the history of people, more than thousand of words.