Art or Vandalism?
17 04 2009That’s the question on our minds whenever we see graffiti around town, and the answer is certainly not cut and dry. In some cases it’s clearly been sanctioned by the property owners, like this house in Georgetown, and some times not, like the picture below of an underpass in Arlington. 
Then there are murals, which again are sometimes sanctioned by the owners, and sometimes not (like the Obama portraits around town). What do you think? When does graffiti cross over into art? Sometimes the colorful “Art” can really add something to an otherwise boring and colorless ally or facade.
[Photo: Cary Scott Photography]
Is it art or vandalism???
Yes.
It crosses the line when it’s not commissioned.
I think there is room for interpretation here, some graffiti that is not commissioned really does add to the community and make streets looks nicer. I’m not for damaging property, but for example, many of the alleys off of U Street have amazing graffiti/art on what would otherwise be a dreary plain pealing old wall.
In total agreement with Citizen Z…
Commissioned? Go for it.
Not commissioned - absolutely vandalism and complete disrespect for other people’s property…
It is vandalism if it has not been commissioned by the owner of the property. I have seen few instances where any sort of graffiti improves a building, street or neighborhood. Murals may or may not be an improvement, but graffiti is an affront to the very idea of civilized urban living.
It’s vandalism. I put my life savings into buying a house. Some a-hole came along and painted BORK in huge letters on the brick. This is historic brick, installed in 1896, that can never be restored to its original form.
This was “an alley off U Street” — so what? It pisses me off that anyone even asks this question. It’s VANDALISM. It’s destruction of this city’s history.
There is a big difference between “tagging” something (writing bork is an example) and graffiti, which I do believe is art. Again, it is never ok when it is destructive to personal property, but the underpass is a great example where I really think it looks better with the colorful graffiti.
There ARE some great programs that bring art to public spaces, and expanding these is probably the best way to go to find a solution to bringing this about in a fair and legal way.
This particular one is art. It’s location and whether or not its offensive. I would rather look at graffiti than a boring wall.
It is Vandalism if they do not have the permission of the owner of the property plain and simple, you do not have a right to draw all over someones property anyone disagree I’ll be over to repaint your house in pink and yellow polka dots tomorrow morning.
I think it’s art. And not because of issues of commissioning or permits, just because I like it.
The government publish inside the trains, buses, in every where and the PUSH things to sell their image..this for me is vandalism.. Vandalism is when some one do not ask for excuse and they JUST came and trow on you so many commercial products..
Wake up people… have so many more important things to talk about..