Graffiti’s Assimilation into the Mainstream
Graffiti has invited a mixed press over recent years. On the “good press” side, graffiti artists like Banksy have made walls a place to put a political point across, using stencils to create technically challenging artworks loaded with a nuanced political point. This kind of graffiti was bound to grow trendy with both the masses and the likes of The Guardian pressroom : attractive to both eye and intellect. This form of graffiti is even purchased as graffiti prints, and placed on the walls of middleclass households and office reception areas.
Nonetheless, what about the opposite end of the spectrum? - the gangbanger, the tagger, the street urchin - this is just seen as antisocial, an offence committed by the talentless. But this is to misinterpret graffiti as strictly art. To many individuals, it’s not only art, but a way to put your stamp on territory, or even a rejection of society altogether : anti-art, anti-social, anti-establishment.
Graffiti has always been an underground activity, although the results are public facing. The targeted audience is often unknown. Is it for a rival gang? A communication to an individual? To the public? Possibly it’s simply gratuitous and out of nothing to do.
Whatever the reasons may be, there seems to be a incessant need to spray on walls. Some city councils have conceded that graffiti isn’t a fad, so they’ve marked off zones where graffiti is permitted - normally derelict areas, but now and again busier zones like temporary boarding surrounding inner city construction sites.
