www.artistsilove.com

The line between Graffiti and Urban art continues to draw controversy. Is it public defacement or an expression of artistic temperament? Opinions vary with some saying Graffiti is not an art form and others indicating it can be amazing art but only when it doesn’t destroy private property. Still another person commented, “Its like a footprint on a foundation. makes you think about who left it behind”. As a gorilla art isn’t the purpose of graffiti to make passersby think about where they are and who else has been around?

As a sporadic thought provoking expression can it then be classified and reigned in as an art form? Perhaps it is meant to be disturbing. By creating a disruptive sense of space, graffiti has its purpose by speaking to the community at large. In defining it with traditional constraints under the label of Urban art the ‘consumer’ might consider it more comfortable but does that negate its purpose?

The arena of urban art shifts its umbrella to include formerly banned projects such as Heidelberg in Detroit into becoming a playground and learning center. Does this remove its original purpose of creating a statement of street life, poverty and urban community?

Comments are closed.