A modern city, with clear cut architecture, black and white picturesque, is lacking color. Art is a wonderful output of humans, yet less space is allotted to it.
You cannot hang a painting on the streets – it’ll get stolen in a heartbeat. People can’t perform on the wall as if in a theater – it’ll increase the crowd. So in what form can art be in the city? Graffiti is a debate.
Have you seen a wall? It’s as boring as it gets. It’s a blank vertical, too simple to insinuate anything other than set a boundary. It’s like a canvas; the purpose is served in the event of art creation. Graffiti makes a wall interesting, deserving a longer glance. Even appreciation.
See the Graffiti above? Our perceptions may differ; but for me, this looks dirty. There is even more intense drawing than that, which I chose not to coalesce in this post to maintain decency. Kyla Brooke asked if Graffiti is really an art, or vandalism. I think it is vandalism when people mess up with a wall that is not their property. Yet, if it is your property and you put up a design that’s funky and overwhelming, would we accept it as a “design”?
Art, vandalism, design, where would you put Graffiti in?