“'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