Note to fellow pedants: I know "graffiti" is plural. But since the word "graffito" is never used in everyday English, perhaps the former should be adopted as if it's the singular, as I do in this blog entry. I still can't make myself think the same about the word 'data', though.
Graffiti, as the dictionary definition goes, is the act by tosspots of scrawling deranged signatures incessantly on public buildings and walls, thereby making the lives of others misery and turning nice spaces into unpleasant ones. There are no exceptions; graffiti is a Bad Thing. It has an effect on entire communities, spreading disrespect and lowering people's values and therefore attitudes towards their surroundings. It breeds the same lowlife state of mind as that needed to daub the graffiti in the first place. It therefore spreads like a cancer.
Everyone knows graffiti is bad, right? So why is the work of Banksy both praised and described as "graffiti"? Talk about making mixed messages. Associating Banksy with graffiti glorifies it, making a mockery of the obvious truth that graffiti is a scourge. You've made the word "graffiti" cool! Whose side are you on by doing that? What positive contribution are YOU making?
Using the term "graffiti artist" makes it worse: Now you're associating tosspots who scrawl crude messages with artistry. That demeans what art is about. Art is beautiful. Even the best graffiti, which may well have artistic merit when abstracted from the circumstances of its existence, goes against that. How can you call something art if its very nature is destructive? There's no place for any art that does that. Art has to be creative and purposeful for positive reasons. There is no positivity in graffiti.
The clear conclusion is that Banksy is not a graffiti artist, nor is he a graffiti-ist in general. God knows what he might be called. He is an artist, and he has turned what formerly was graffiti into an art that is now not. We need a new name for his art form - or just call it a subtype of mural. I suppose that's all it is, really.
Graffiti walls, where councils deliberately construct walls for grafitti-ists to dawb what they want, is generally a good idea. At least then it isn't destroying something designed for a different purpose, and it can be removed afterwards. Or, if it's good, keep it there as a work of art. Then, unwittingly, the grafitti-ists have been encouraged to become artists: They are being trained to express themselves positively, and to take their need for scrawling shite in a different direction. At least, we can hope.
Here's an idea for getting rid of graffiti: Don't paint over it. It just creates a fresh canvas. What's the point? You know what's coming next: More graffiti over the top. I have something much more effective, as well as being cheaper:
- If there's just one scrawl, paint the words "is gay" underneath it.
- If there's a collection of scrawls, paint the words, "The following people would like to declare their homosexuality:" above them.
First: Laughing-stock. No-one who is the sort of person who dawbs graffiti would want to be associated with being gay. Even if they don't care, their "this is my stamp on my area" authority-type dawb is turned into something that can't be taken seriously. It takes the sting out of the tail.
Second: A desperate attempt by the offenders to find and paint over it all. Now you've got the graffiti-ist painting over their own scrawls on your behalf!
Third: Knowledge of what will happen if they do it again.
A note about those of you who are inevitably thinking, "if there was more for young people to do, then graffiti would be less of a problem." Well, yes, I suppose you're correct. But that doesn't excuse their actions, just like with any other criminal acts: It just makes them unfairly-treated, underprivileged victims of discrimination -- who are also tosspots who make the lives of others misery.
