Graffiti: the art of vandalism VS the vandalism of art

Graffiti is sometimes a contentious issue. To one person it can be considered art, to another it is just vandalism. The context of it can also be important. What part is it that we find offensive? Does it depend on the nature of it?

In some places, take Camden for example, masses of ‘urban art-work’ is left for all to see however in other places, the ‘graffiti’ has been covered up by yet more ‘graffiti’ as people express their ownership of an area. Why does this happen in some places and not others?

At times however, like during a recent train journey, there are occasions where you see the two forms complimenting each other perfectly.

As my train halted to let another pass, I noticed the back of a building that had just two words (graffiti) and one image (art-work) on it. The words ‘wet paint’ are pretty boring on their own, however it was obvious that someone had seen this as a creative opportunity, making in my eyes, an ideal photo opportunity.

Click the image to see why I clicked the shutter…….


One thought on “Graffiti: the art of vandalism VS the vandalism of art

  1. Pingback: Graffiti: Banksy and the contentious issue of ownership | CADEPhotographic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: