By Elanor Lukin
Can graffiti be a valid form of art, or is it always nothing more than vandalism? Citizens of a community usually stand together to ban the placement of graffiti on business fronts and bus stops, while the creators themselves are fined or punished with some regularity. In support of this prohibition, young people trying to purchase spray paint are often harassed by store owners.
City planners have good reason to be critical of vandalism. It drives away customers from urban businesses and represents citizen unrest and threats of violence. This contributes to the decline in urban development which stalls a city economically and prevents it from ever offering a vibrant, urban center to residents.
While these concerns are valid, graffiti and vandalism are two different things. Though often compelled by a vandal’s impulse, graffiti is, at heart, another form of contemporary art. Like street theater troupes or performance artists, graffiti artists seek to break away from the traditional mode of expression used by many graphic artists, in this case the rigidity of the framed canvas. While some graffiti is comprised entirely of monochromatic, illegible lettering, so too is some poetry amateurish, rambling and self-indulgent. Graffiti, as an artistic medium, can’t be judged only by trite failures.
Graffiti can also have positive political ramifications. Young people don’t always have an appropriate forum in which to voice their interests and concerns. Street art, accessible to anyone, can be a constructive, nonviolent vehicle of expression and help this often-muted culture find non-traditional ways to exercise creativity.
Politically substantial and aesthetically meritorious, some graffiti can be genuinely categorized as “good art.” One can find amazing and intricate aerosoled creations that would take even the most skilled of commissioned mural artists dozens of hours to complete.
While there appears to be a conflict between those who want to see positive city development and those who want to encourage graffiti as an artistic statement, these aims do not have to be mutually exclusive. The street artists should lobby the Louisville Metro government to set aside spaces where graffiti-ing is allowed. Louisville has a recent history of accounting for the needs of its youth. Our skate park was created at great expense to the city, largely due to the successful lobbying of an active and well-intentioned youth subculture. With some diligence, perhaps graffiti artists could have similar success.
The local government also has strong incentive to incorporate street artists into its community vision. When something is banned it is forced underground, where it is much more difficult to regulate. If Louisville were to allow, and even encourage, sanctioned graffiti, the city might see a decline in unwanted art. What’s more, by listening to the requests of responsible graffiti artists, the local government would garner even more support in pursuing simple vandals, who clearly have less interest in creating art than in lawless behavior at the expense of their own city.
Anyone who cares about avenues for young peoples’ creativity, or even the direction of contemporary art, should speak up. They should inform the government that it ought to be negotiating with them to find appropriate places for street artists to showcase their work. Once the local government understands that the community stands to benefit, it will be much more willing to listen.
Eleanor Luken is an Art major and a member of the McConnell Scholars Program. E-mail her at: opinion@louisvillecardinal.com
