Street art can be considered a crime if it is done without the permission of the property owner or the local authorities. This is because it involves altering or painting on public or private property without the owner’s consent, which can be seen as an act of vandalism or trespassing. However, street art can also be considered a legitimate form of artistic expression if it is done with the owner’s permission or in designated areas where street art is allowed. Some cities have designated areas where street artists can legally paint, and some property owners even commission street artists to create murals on their buildings. Ultimately, whether street art is a crime or not depends on the specific circumstances and the laws of the area where it is being done.
Located in Imperial Beach, San Diego a couple of murals were made to express the environment of this beautiful city which welcomes newcomers that they are close to the ocean. many street artists are making new pieces of art however, examining this vandalized electrical box changes everything. Vandalizing street art can have a significant impact on the piece of art. It can damage or ruin the artwork, making it difficult or impossible to restore to its original form. This can be particularly devastating for street artists, who often put a lot of time and effort into creating their artwork. Vandals may deface the artwork by spray-painting over it, scratching the surface, or otherwise damaging it. This can diminish the artistic value of the piece and make it less appealing to the public.
Vandalism can also affect the message and meaning of street art. Many street artists use their work to convey a message or make a statement about a particular issue or topic. When the artwork is vandalized, this message can be lost or distorted, and the artist’s intentions may not be fully realized. This can be frustrating for the artist and may discourage them from creating more street art in the future.
Vandalism can have a negative impact on the community as a whole. It can make an area feel less safe and welcoming and can contribute to a sense of decay and neglect. This can be detrimental to the community’s overall well-being and may discourage people from visiting or spending time in the area.
5 thoughts on “Street art vandalized by lame graffiti! What is the big deal?”
While I agree that vandalism can be detrimental to street art messages and that it is a crime, I am hesitant to condemn graffiti as a whole. While the example used in this article is not particularly artistic looking, it could still be considered art depending on the definition being used, and many graffiti artists do put a lot of effort and artistic talent into their pieces. Additionally, as a prior commenter mentioned, many well known graffiti artists don’t ask permission, but their work is certainly still considered art and has become quite popular. So, are those artists criminals that deserve to be punished for the message they are trying to spread? Or does the condemnation of graffiti have to adhere to a particular aesthetic criteria above the concept of vandalism?
I think there might be some purpose behind vandalism which classifies it as an art. It’s interesting when two types of artwork are pitted against each other like this. I think there are reasons to keep both of these types of artwork and they both have a right to belong there. I think each situation is case by case as one type of vandalism could just be tagging among gangs and another could legitimately be adding to the artwork. But honestly vandalism is a fundamental crime so I think that in most cases it should not happen and be enforced as a law.
Totally agree that when street art is done with permission, it’s better and safer for everyone involved and it’s NOT vandalism. If you have the OK from the owners to put up a mural or a piece, you don’t have to worry about getting caught or running from the cops which can lead to a separate problem. If these pieces that get put up with permission gets “tagged over” or stickered over, then that becomes an act of vandalism which is NOT ok.
But is permission what’s best for the artwork itself and people in general, or does it need that invalidation to push the boundaries of social criticism and debate? So many of the most well-known graffiti artists (including Banksy, Basquiat, and Keith Harring) didn’t ask permission for their works. They went to the site of their choosing and quote-on-quote “vandalized” the property they were drawing on. Some of their works didn’t even look like murals or artworks but instead were actual words they spray painted on loosely to get their message across (i.e., Basquiat’s SAMO graffiti work), very similar to some of the graffiti words we see on walls, car tunnels, etc. today. The specific location of their graffiti and the meaning behind their artworks/writings added to the social criticism they were trying to push for. So, in that sense, the vandalism had a purpose in terms of the artist’s criticism and intent. If that were the case, is it always better to have work that’s “safe” and asks for “permission?” Or do we need something more to push those areas of debate?
Hello Gerardo, hope you’re doing well. I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading your article. I wouldn’t even classify the vandalism as “art” because anybody can do it. I can spray paint letters and numbers. They’re most likely representations of gangs and groups. I wonder how people who vandalize are being brought to justice. I’m sure the owners of the properties that have street art have cameras. However, I feel like people who vandalize street art tend to conceal their identities. Also, I wonder if the reason they vandalize street art is because they despise the artist’s abilities.
I definitely agree with you on how the vandalism of street art may lose the message. For example, the picture that is depicted with the title. It an electrical box with flowers and what I think is a waterfall. The message may be to engage with nature in this world of industrialization. However, this may be lost due to the vandalism.