The Platform

MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD!
Linda Xu/Unsplash

When does graffiti stop being art and become something more?

Have you ever strolled past a wall, a bus stop, or a building splashed with vibrant colors, bold lines, and cryptic messages? Did you stop to admire it or dismiss it as vandalism? Is it possible to consider such creations art? Should they be celebrated—or prohibited outright?

Graffiti, broadly defined as writing, tagging, or painting on public spaces, is a form of expression that challenges the boundaries of legality and aesthetics. It is an unfiltered voice, yet it often raises questions about property, permission, and the value of art in public spaces. For some, graffiti transforms drab urban landscapes into vivid canvases of creativity; for others, it represents an intrusion, an act of defiance against the orderliness of shared spaces. Where do we draw the line between artistic expression and vandalism? And perhaps more crucially, who gets to decide?

Few art forms spark as much debate as graffiti. While its most dazzling examples—elaborate murals bursting with creativity—win acclaim, others quickly denounce even these as mere vandalism. Critics argue that graffiti, by its very nature, involves an act of trespass, a claim on public or private property made without consent. Yet for its practitioners, graffiti is not just a means of communication; it is a rebellion against norms and a testament to the urgency of self-expression.

Legal perspectives on graffiti vary widely. In many countries, creating graffiti is a criminal act, often met with fines or imprisonment. In India, however, laws concerning graffiti are vague, leaving the practice in a curious legal limbo. Despite its ambiguous status, graffiti often carries the stigma of vandalism. A quick online search for the term “vandalism” yields countless images of graffiti, reinforcing the notion that these two ideas are intrinsically linked. But does the placement of a work—on an abandoned warehouse wall versus a national monument—determine its legitimacy? And what role does artistic intent play in how graffiti is judged?

Graffiti
(Provided by the author)

Graffiti’s power lies in its defiance. Public spaces become the artist’s canvas, free from the constraints of gallery walls and curators. This sense of unfiltered creativity can transform neglected walls and forgotten corners into vibrant public galleries. The bright colors and striking patterns that characterize graffiti are more than mere decoration; they demand attention, provoking thought and emotion in ways few art forms can. Science tells us that colors evoke emotional responses, affecting our mood and perception. Graffiti’s ability to enliven drab urban environments with vivid hues and bold designs parallels the impact of traditional art in a gallery setting.

Historically, art has served as a means of communication, and graffiti is no exception. Whether used to raise awareness about social issues, as seen in campaigns like “Missing Girls,” or to critique political systems, graffiti amplifies the voices of those who might otherwise go unheard. It democratizes art, making it accessible to all, regardless of class or privilege. Graffiti artists bypass the traditional gatekeepers of the art world—curators, critics, and buyers—to connect directly with their audience. In this way, graffiti embodies the very essence of freedom of expression.

But where does one draw the line? The distinction between graffiti as art and graffiti as vandalism often depends on intent and impact. When graffiti desecrates cherished landmarks or damages private property, it veers into vandalism. Even the most skillful works lose their appeal when they disrespect historical or cultural significance spaces. For instance, defacing a statue of Mahatma Gandhi would be widely condemned, while a mural celebrating Indian culture might be celebrated if thoughtfully placed.

The issue becomes more complicated when graffiti compromises public safety. Tags on street signs or spray paint that obscures traffic signals, for example, can put lives at risk. In these instances, the artistry—no matter how impressive—becomes secondary to the harm caused. Yet the same medium that has the potential for damage can also elevate. A neglected wall, once overlooked, can become a site of beauty and inspiration through the hands of a talented graffiti artist.

Censoring graffiti presents a thorny challenge. Its unrestrained, spontaneous nature is precisely what makes it so powerful. But this same freedom can lead to misuse, blurring the boundaries between creativity and destruction. Perhaps, rather than condemning graffiti outright, society could shift its perspective, fostering an appreciation for its potential to enhance and transform public spaces. What if, instead of policing graffiti, we celebrated its capacity to breathe life into the otherwise mundane?

Graffiti embodies the dualities of human nature: creation and destruction, rebellion and expression, freedom and responsibility. It is a medium that provokes, inspires, and sometimes alienates. By embracing its complexities, we can better understand what it reveals about our cities—and ourselves. After all, graffiti challenges us to see beauty in the unexpected and to consider that perhaps the line between art and vandalism is not a line but a question of perspective.

Ishikaa Banot is pursuing a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Legislative Law at NUJS Kolkata.