“'Yes, But Is It
Vandalism?' Graffiti, Conceptual Criminals, Artists, and Free Speech”
Aesthetic Pathways
1:2 (2011), 108-117
by Julie Van
Camp
ABSTRACT
Is graffiti,
which is putatively vandalism, art and therefore exempt from criminal laws
because of the protection of free speech? I consider what constitutes “graffiti.”
Is it merely a style of visual art construction? Or does it necessarily involve
violation of someone else’s property or rights in the art construction to
constitute graffiti? I then consider specific examples of contested graffiti,
focussing especially on the recently liberated countries of the former Soviet
bloc, now experiencing an unwelcome explosion of graffiti. Simply because
something is art does not necessarily mean it should be granted the usual
protections of free speech, especially when it involves the destruction of
someone else’s property. We should focus on the alleged crime of vandalism
and ask whether the status of the work as “art” supports a justification
or an excuse from criminal prosecution or public condemnation that we would
not afford other acts of vandalism.
Return to Bio Page
This page maintained by Julie Van Camp
Your questions and comments are welcome: jvancamp@csulb.edu
Last updated: September 9, 2011