Legal Graffiti
Wikipedia defines graffiti as “graphics applied without authorization to publicly viewable surfaces,” which clearly denotes its antiestablishment nature along with the sense of empowerment that it provides to the artists and even local community through the “without authorization” part, after all, who has authority over public view? The values of graffiti art can be defined in the context of a postmodern society that appreciates true originality and celebrates the transfer of the means of expression from the powerful few to the general public.
It is not surprising that, once these values have been ratified by the ubiquitous power of social media, modern graffiti becomes one of the most important symbols of the early stages of a process that, more than reclaiming public space, has been rebelling against the monologue of old-fashioned media.
The new status of graffiti won’t come without a price. As a new glamorous figure [think Che Guevara], with high profile artists, graffiti art is rapidly mutating into a nobrow signifier representing most of the values that it used to antagonize. Proof can be found in the complaints of locals that no longer can afford the rent in the London neighborhoods that showcase some of the best work from Banksy, as well as in commercial billboards featuring Neckface’s art courtesy of Vans.
This shouldn’t be taken as something necessarily good or bad, on the contrary, an objective [neutral, if possible] analysis of the new values of graffiti could contribute to advance the understanding of how society reshapes the meaning of the figures and art forms that attempt to shape society itself [if that makes any sense…].
