Man on the street: Is graffiti art?

With major publications like The New York Times and The Atlantic writing about the blurred distinctions between art and graffiti within the past year, the question is pertinent now more than ever — is graffiti art? 

“I don’t think that we have to classify graffiti as art for it to have value, or for it to deserve to take up public space and to be a legitimate forum for challenging power. I think graffiti is legitimate political expression, just like a march or a banner or a chant. It’s a very cheap out to try to discredit it and say, ‘It’s against the rules,’ or ‘It’s illegal.’ Pay attention to the message. Why would somebody do that? Of course, it’s a risk — of course, that person is risking arrest. There’s a reason that they felt moved to spray paint something.”

— Madeleine Scanlon, women’s and gender studies and Spanish, senior 

---

“I think that it’s not art if it’s the destruction of someone else’s property because you’re taking away from someone’s building — which is their art.” 

— Danielle Ferens, sociology, freshman 

---

“I think it is a form of art. It may not be the most legal of ways to express yourself, but it’s definitely a way of expressing your feelings and emotions and getting a point across.”

— Sammy Pistiolis, biology and chemistry, senior 

---

“I do think graffiti is art. I think there’s a distinction between graffiti and vandalism. When you're defacing public, state, federal or local property, there’s a point where it’s no longer defined as art.”

— Thomas Lasater, senior, religious studies and political science 

---

“Certain graffiti is art. If the artist is trying to convey a message and not just an expletive on a wall.”

—Will Ostrom, junior, nutrition