Should graffiti be considered art?

Well, this is a subjective topic. Pretty much like art itself. The main problem with graffiti over
the years were the legal terms, doing any sort of drawing or doodling on public buildings being
considered vandalism. But looking at the big picture, it really doesn’t have to be this way. I once
read of Bueno Aires authorities paying street artist to do graffiti over vandalized buildings to
cover the racial slurs with meaningful paintings, or about some school in Dabrowa, Poland that
encouraged its students to do graffiti on the inside of the building to enhance its look. Quoting
Wikipedia on the definition of graffiti, it actually means an engraving on a wall. So this does not
mean the engraving, drawing or writing should be aesthetic to be considered “graffiti”, hence
the subjectivity of the topic. But if the law covered the “graffiti” topic deeper, and there were
certain rules on who can paint on the outside, like giving authorization to certain artists,
obtaining consent from buildings owners, the results could be mesmerizing. What the
authorities don’t seem to grasp yet is that street art is that it could really contribute to a city’s
culture. Picture this: Paris being known for the Eiffel Tower, Rome for the coliseum and some
random city for some huge mural in the middle of the town, and various paintings all over the
city. The problem regarding the legal status of graffiti affects much more than the frequency
you can see one. Being illegal, it forces artists to do them during night time, on low light, forces
them to paint hasty, hence the final result being affected and forces them to improvise ladders
or ropes, instead of cranes, which not only also affects the final product, but also endangers the
artists’ lives. If the law was more supportive of this concept, the results could be more fruitful,
and they would tend more to approach the concept of “art”.
I’m not saying here that graffiti should be considered art just because it’s been mostly
forbidden so far. Let’s take a deeper look on what “art” actually means. Well, in my opinion, art
is firstly really anything that makes you feel something. Be it music, a play, a sculpture, poetry
anything that you perceive with your eyes, ears or hands and then is then transcribed into your
emotions. And second, art is something that takes dedication. Is something that you’ve
struggled to achieve, a way to transcribing yourself into something physical other people can
feel. Now that I told you what I think art is, I’m asking you: doesn’t graffiti meet all the
aforementioned requirements? Because I can boldly claim it does.
In these days, something is something if everybody agrees it is. So, a painting on a big wall will
be an example of misbehavior if people believe it’s misbehavior or will be an appreciated piece
of art if people think it is so. But it shouldn’t take a lot to realize a painting on a wall is really art
and not some bad practice amongst the teenagers. It should not give people only the beautiful
mix of colors and shades, it should also give them the feel that the place they live is being taken
care of, that somebody really put time and effort to do a beautiful thing, that they can see
everyday, and be proud of it. It’s really like planting a bunch of flowers that stays there for
good.
Another perspective that really puts together the concepts of “art” and “graffiti” is the fact that
artists mostly do it on their on resources, by their own desire. It just screams “it’s something
I’ve done, and it’s beautiful, and it would be very selfish of me to keep it to myself, the world
has to see it”, just the same impulse every. As a beautiful quote from Louis Bourgeois said, “An
artist shows things that other people are terrified of expressing”, and thus I really believe
graffiti is not just art, but beautiful art.