Spray paints replace colored pencils, the warehouse opposite Eastern Market turns into an open canvas, and the kids that you normally would not pay attention to become artists... or at least for a few minutes before police sirens signal their time to go.
During our class discussion, graffiti, and whether or not it should be considered a legal art form instead of a illegal damaging of property, was discussed among classmates. This is brought on as graffiti is becoming more commonly seen and appreciated for either its skill and craftsmanship, or because of its often vulgar and thought-provoking messages, especially in cities such as Detroit. Regardless, the debate remains as to whether the artists should be punished for their tagging as potential damage of property or if their tagging should be allowed on certain buildings. Of course, tagging should not be allowed on the side of an open business or house, but then the question of if it's allowed on abandoned buildings, freeway overpasses, or trains, should be deemed fair. As I think of this, I do agree that permission is often needed, but then I wonder, what if the point of graffiti is for it to be illegal in the first place, and by it being illegal, it questions the purpose of certain laws and restrictions?
Alyson, I really like how you consider the legalities of graffiti and how they possibly add to the art of graffiti. I think the idea of expressing thoughts and feelings through art, especially when it is against the law, is powerful. Therefore, I most certainly believe that graffiti is not only great to look at, but it is used as a tool to speak to an audience. And, as an audience, we can recognize that whatever message the graffiti artist is trying to convey is important enough to the artist where he or she is willing to break the law in order to tell us exactly what it is. Again, that is powerful.
ReplyDelete