Art & Architecture

null 21° London Hi 21°C / Lo 16°C

Graffiti: Street art – or crime?

A group of south London graffiti artists were jailed last week for up to two years for defacing public property. Yet as they begin their sentences, their work is to be championed by a New York gallery.

By Arifa Akbar and Paul Vallely
Wednesday, 16 July 2008

A piece of graffiti, allegedly by Banksy, on a wall in central London. The artist's work now sells for hundreds of thousands of pounds

PA

A piece of graffiti, allegedly by Banksy, on a wall in central London. The artist's work now sells for hundreds of thousands of pounds

On the face of it, as a society, we seem to be a little mixed-up when it comes to "graffiti", as you call it if you work in the local council's cleansing department, or "street art" as you say if you're the chap – and they do mainly seem to be blokes – wielding the spray can.

But the confusion now runs deeper than those who spray and those who remove the paint. Great British institutions have been polarised. Last week the might of English law delivered its verdict at Southwark Crown Court where five members of the DPM graffiti crew were jailed – one, Andrew Gillman, for two years – after admitting conspiracy to cause criminal damage costing the taxpayer at least £1m.

By contrast, just down the road, the riverside facade of Tate Modern had been covered in giant murals by six urban artists with international reputations, including Blu from Bologna, Faile from New York, and Sixeart from Barcelona, in the first display of street art at a major museum.

The courtroom and the museum were so close that supporters of the men on trial popped down to the Tate to do a bit of retouching during one lunchtime adjournment. "There is a huge irony in the juxtaposition of the two events," said one of the artists.

The man to credit for bringing street art into established gallery spaces is Banksy. A few years ago he was sneaking his work into galleries such as the Louvre and Tate Britain. Now Tate Modern is selling his book in its gift shop. His works go for hundreds of thousands of pounds and he was recently featured in a retrospective exhibition alongside Andy Warhol. He, more than anyone else, has legitimised the genre and spawned a new generation of young imitators – much to the chagrin of those who want to clean up behind them.

Bob has been involved in graffiti since 1982 when he was a punk. He now works, by day, for a London art gallery and describes himself as an upstanding taxpayer. "London is to street art, at the start of the 21st century, what Paris was for Impressionism at the start of the 20th," he says with unfeigned immodesty. "And yet we hate graffiti more than anywhere else in the world. England is by far and away the most draconian for punishments for what are only economic crimes."

A gallery in New York launches an exhibition next week based on the work of those convicted at Southwark. "DPM – Exhibit A", at the Anonymous Gallery Project in SoHo, will display large photographs of the convicts' work alongside copies of their charge sheets to ask whether the men are criminals or artists.

It is a question which prompts different answers in different parts of the world, says Cedar Lewinsohn, the curator of the exhibition at Tate Modern. "Brazil for instance is more relaxed about it," he says. "In parts of Australia, they are like the UK and people really hate graffiti and tags on vans and trains, but in Melbourne van drivers compete with each other as to whose is more decorated."

They have similarly schizophrenic responses in other nations too. In Toronto, police have just hired a street artist to paint walls to help find the man who murdered her brother. Elsewhere in Canada, a court has ruled that, after a police crackdown on graffiti artists, a 28-year-old man is only allowed to venture into town if he is accompanied by his mother. One internet blogger wrote: "In their twenties and still vandalising other people's property – shouldn't they have moved on to drug dealing, or perhaps become real estate agents by that age?"

Street art, you see, is a highly polarising phenomenon. On the one hand there are those like the American artist Elura Emerald, who is also involved in next week's New York exhibition, who insist that "artists who paint on the street are merely expressing themselves, not hurting anyone" and should not be punished "but appreciated and celebrated". Then there are those like Judge Christopher Hardy who, in court in Southwark, described the activities of the DPM Crew as "a wholesale self-indulgent campaign to damage property on an industrial scale".

How is such a dichotomy to be resolved? How, The Independent asked the street artist Bob, can artistic expression be reconciled with the fear and loathing that graffiti inspires in many citizens who see it as a symbol of lawlessness and the deterioration of their neighbourhood? "Well, not by sending them to jail," he says.

Gedis Grudzinskas, whose son Ziggy, 25, was one of those jailed last week agrees. "Ziggy has been sent to prison for 18 months having pleaded guilty to a crime not involving violence, terrorism, knives or drugs but vandalising public property," he says.

Having said that, Bob concedes, "you can't let people run wild". "If there's a clash of rights obviously those of the owner of the wall take precedence over those of the person painting on it," he adds. "There's room for debate but jail sentences shouldn't be part of that. They should just have to do youth work, or clean up ugly tags."

Greenwich and Tower Hamlets councils agree. They commissioned Ziggy and another DPM member to lead summer workshops as street art tutors for young and vulnerable people. The two councils sent references to court vouching that the DPM men were "positive" and "inspirational" in working with "young people who aren't able to do reading or writing". But it was not enough to save them from prison.

Is artistic merit enough of an excuse? A hoary old "is it art?" debate is taking place on street art next month at Tate Modern. Under the title "Graffiti – Utopia or a bit boring?", two art critics will consider whether graffiti is "glorified vandalism or a legitimate cultural movement". Bob does not think it will help much.

"Street art starts with kids doing ugly tags," he says. "When a kid starts to play music only the next-door neighbours hear but with street art the whole neighbourhood sees him not being very good when he starts out." The trouble is there is a whole lot of learning going on.

Some 85 per cent of graffiti is just tags, and another 10 per cent is gang communication, according to US sociologists who survey this kind of thing. And who, anyway, says Bob, is going to police "what is art and what is ugly"?

The money men will not help much, for all their attempts to cash in on street art. Red Bull, Adidas, Puma, 55DSL and Lee Jeans have all incorporated graffiti into their marketing campaigns. The BBC hired the DPM Crew's ringleader Andrew Gillman to deface the set of EastEnders to add a sense of authenticity to Albert Square. And the German paint firm Belton has even developed a new line of spray paint called Molotov aimed at street stencillers, with colours named after well-known graffiti artists.

So if artistic merit and commercial value aren't yardsticks for resolving our national confusion what is?

"I suppose the greater the cost of removing the graffiti, the greater the punishment should be, though not prison," says Bob, somewhat unexpectedly. This is not a million miles from Judge Hardy's verdict on the two-year spree in which the DPM Crew staged 120 night-time attacks on stations, trains and railway rolling stock in London, Somerset, Liverpool, Manchester, Sunderland, Paris, Amsterdam and the Czech Republic.

The judge had little patience with Gillman's notion that "trains were like a moving canvas" on which to create something artistic and thought-provoking that made "commuters look up from their paper".

Judge Hardy admitted that "it would be wrong of me not to acknowledge that some examples of your handiwork show considerable artistic talent", but he concluded, "the trouble is that it is has been sprayed all over other people's property without their consent and that is simply vandalism." Over the two years the bill must have run into millions of pounds.

If art is defined by the artist's intent then vandalism must be determined by the response of the owner of the thing vandalised. Peterborough City Council recently tried to find a compromise. It erected two 8ft by 4ft boards to allow artists there to express themselves freely. The trouble was that they were pulled down by vandals.

Additional reporting by Kate Mead

Six of the best street artists (apart from Banksy)

Paul Insect

Insect's Pop-art inspired street art has rapidly risen in profile. Last year, Damien Hirst snapped up his entire collection before it reached exhibition for a reported £50,000, while the actor Kevin Spacey has also acquired some pieces. Insect is best known for his anti-establishment messages.

Rough

One of the most respected and sought-after artists in Britain, Rough uses letterforms for his graffiti artwork. With a career spanning nearly two decades, Rough's work has been exhibited to critical acclaim in Australia and across Europe. A graphic designer, Rough has published a book, runs a T-shirt label and releases records as a rapper in a hip-hop band.

Blek Le Rat

The grand old man of street art is said to have paved the way for Banksy. After years of dodging the French authorities, he ended up being embraced by them. The Parisian has been spraying stencil-art graffiti since the early 1980s, the style favoured by Banksy.

Eine

Best known for the letters he paints on shop fronts around London. He spray-painted the word "nightmare" along a 110ft wall in an exhibition of street art in east London last year showing an alternative vision of Christmas.

Nick Walker

Emerged from the 1980s Bristol graffiti scene alongside Banksy. His work Moona Lisa – a bottom-baring version of La Joconde – went for £54,000 at Bonhams.

Robert Del Naja

Also known as 3D, the street artist and musician was part of the Bristol collective known as The Wild Bunch and went on to become a founding member of Massive Attack. His first live gig was as a DJ accompanying artwork he had produced in a Bristol gallery.

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Comments

36 Comments

Now that the identity of Banksy is known,surely the same punishment should be meted out to him as these young Graffiti artists sent down for 15-24 months.But no, as the prisons are so full that inmates are sleeping in the prison toilets,these young men should be released to do community service brightening up hospital wards for the sick elderly,joined by Banksy who could provide mentoring,if not in artistic technique in how to avoid detection.Ziggy's Dad

Posted by Ziggy's Dad | 22.07.08, 07:38 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

The argument over whether unsolicited illustrating of public and private property has already been decided - grafitti IS considered a valid artform by the art world as exemplified by the London Tate Gallery and innumerable other galleries the world over who exhibit "Grafitti Art". The day that these artists were imprisoned was the same day that the authorities in Bristol declared that any and all of Banksy's 'criminally damaging' street artwork around the city is now protected as part pf our cultural heritage and MUST NOT be painted over or removed. I thought there was one law for all in this country. In this case, no less than 5 barristers failed to point out this ridiculous hypocritical contradiction. These creative young men are not criminals, they are guilty, at worst, of unsolicited defacing of other people's property. So why not just get them to wash it off? Sending them to prison is risking turning them into criminals. Respect is a two-way street. It is high time for truth.

Posted by Truthtalker | 22.07.08, 02:54 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

kids who tag streetnames arent the only ones writing in public spaces. There are numerous scrawlings of who has sucked whos genitals which remain much longer than they should. Isn't it just something kids do?

As for street art i think the point raised regarding economical crimes hit the nail on the head. Besides, if the railways are privatised, why do they have their own police force?

Posted by traycee | 21.07.08, 14:35 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

This is criminal act and should be treated as an act of damaging and vandalising private property. Owners of this buildings are to blame and they MUST report vandalism to Council and police.Vandals can now be charged with a new marking graffiti offence and face up to two years jail and a fine of more than $26,000, depending of the size of damaged areas

Posted by criminal | 20.07.08, 00:28 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Graffiti, or the term applied to the particular "art form" which sprang from the vandalism of new york subway trains in the late 60s and seventies is intrinsicaly illegal. The nature of the graffiti artist and the "bomber" is to selfishly reinforce his/her own individuality through what can be descibed as an illegal artistic expression. It ceases to be valid and its form and message is ultimately denegrated by making it acceptable, legal or commercial viable. In the eyes of the real graffiti "artist", Graffiti (for want of a better word) is no art but a from initself which is utside of accepted society. Its illegality or aspect of vandalism will always make it taboo and by the nature of this form will always make it antidisestablishment. Society will thus always look at it as an invalid form of communication because of this, by analogy the graffiti tagger of "bomber" being more akin to a terrorist than an artist.

Posted by flake | 18.07.08, 13:48 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Oh dear. Surely these people should have their arms cut off? Or be put into landfill? They need to actually buy (or otherwise obtain) a spraying agent, obtaining a hood to cover their heads, and scope out the CCTVs ... it's all quite a lot of effort to commit a crime for no discernable return. And not quite up there in the sympathy league with say, stealing a crust of bread.

If they wanted to to hone their craft, they might want to think about buying materials and starving in a garret like everyone else, instead of committing trespass.

Posted by Justine | 18.07.08, 11:59 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

The tactics used by the British Transport Police in apprehending DPM were underhand to say the least. Surely following individuals for TWO YEARS and allowing them to carry on painting – and hence upping both the bill to the tax payer in police wages and cleaning costs, as well as the weight of the charges – is tantamount to entrapment? DPM's activities kept the BTP in work.
My local paper puts graffiti court cases on the front page and stabbings on page five. It's another form of disinformation. The government and their servants have long since lost control, but demonising graffiti writers is a great way to distract people from the far more serious issues at stake here...or so they think.

Posted by Cornbread | 18.07.08, 10:22 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

The key issue in this debate shouldn't be "what constitutes art?", but refined down to simple points.

1. The boys have been sentenced for significantly longer than many violent crimes/recent terrorism sentences.

2. The councils themselves wanted the boys to stay out of jail due to their exemplary work with young people.

3. Should non-violent criminals be put in jail. Surely jail is correctional and designed to keep dangerous people away from society/deter them from reoffending. Seeing as graffiti is not a violent uncontrollable thing, the boys have no place in jail alongside GBH convicts etc.

4. The cost of the trial, prison costs, in addition to salaries played to cleaners to wash graffiti off walls/trains, begs the question: why aren't the boys having a sentence which would fit the crime they committed? Each and every one of those boys would be happy to have recieved extensive community service.

In conclusion, doesn't London have more important crimes to focus on?

Posted by RationalView | 18.07.08, 09:40 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

I really cannot beleive the sentences imposed on DPM, while rapists, burglers and all sorts of criminals are left as "the police have no time to investigate everything". These young talented men should be released immediately and should be asked to serve community sentences instead. Perhaps, teach art to young underprivilaged children!

Posted by kamilia | 18.07.08, 09:33 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

The tags I don't like, but understand that these are the young up and coming artists - some will be better than others - the colourful artwork, is often fantastic, and to my mind brightens up dull grey buildings in a dull grey UK where the sun rarely shines and it rains a lot. Corporate advertising logos adorn our own Metro system, they are ugly and boring - but if someone adds art, they are criminals - this I don't understand. For the tags, make them clean them up for the art work give them spaces to do it, e.g. in Granada, wherever there are empty shops, boards are erected for artists to use. Colourful artwork has to inspire more than run down empty spaces too - we have billboards to advertise gas guzzling cars, cheap flights, etc. maybe they should just paint over the top of these. Personally I'd vote for art any day. p.s. I'd be honoured if Banksy would put a piece of his work on my house anytime.

Posted by Judie | 17.07.08, 11:08 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

36 Comments


Most viewed