Vandalism can be art, but not in this case, from Otago Daily Times

Is it vandalism or art?

This question was raised in some minds by the very large inscriptions that appeared on the facade of Farmers in George St, Dunedin, last Wednesday.

There were several, repeating the word "risk", all in the same highly stylised font, in bright colours with the words "Menace to Society" in the middle in more conventional and legible letters.

About the same time, similar effusions appeared in Albion Lane.

This led my fellow columnist, Dave Cannan (The Wash), to wonder if these manifestations were graffiti or tagging. The reporter of the incident settled for tagging (ODT, 30.8.12).

Dave's research showed him this was "bombing", not "tagging".

One dictionary of slang I found online has "bombing" as either doing any kind of graffiti or doing a very big one, or many in an area on one occasion.

This would make Wednesday's manifestations bombing, tagging and graffiti, but no matter.

Dave went on to opine that, doubtless, many people could explain "that one is 'art' [of the sort made famous by England's Banksy, I'm told] and the other is, well, whatever you want to call it.

Many, I suspect, would describe it as vandalism, plain and simple."

Being one of the many, I'm more than happy to explain, but some clarification is necessary.

First, the question conceals a false dichotomy.

It is perfectly possible for something to be both vandalism and art at the same time.

Whether it is vandalism depends on a moral evaluation; whether it is art on an aesthetic one.

People who mark other people's property, however tastefully or otherwise, without the owner's permission, are guilty of infringing the owner's rights.

Unless the recent manifestations were authorised, which seems highly unlikely, that clearly makes them vandalism, or at least some form of trespass, moral negatives.

But are the inscriptions art?

Dave suggested that "tagging" is simply the application of someone's initials or symbol, while "bombing" is art of the sort made famous by Banksy.

There are more false dichotomies here.

All these manifestations are graffiti, in the ordinary sense of the word: unauthorised inscriptions or images, often in public places.

But to make a distinction between forms of them, and to say one is art but not the other, is to tangle things up.

It's like saying drawing isn't art but painting is.

Whether something is art or not doesn't depend on its medium. Some drawings are art, some paintings, too; others aren't. It's the same with graffiti, whether it's tagging or bombing, or any other kind.

What makes Banksy's work art is the quality of some of his graphic images - not necessary in a work of art but always a plus - and the intelligence and aplomb he uses to convey significant messages: political, moral and metaphysical.

The apparent hole he planted on the wall the Israeli government erected to fence off the occupied West Bank is a good example.

Graffiti doesn't have to succeed at this level to become art. But Banksy's work shows it can be, at an impressive level.

There are much more homely examples and, yes, Banksy's hole is still vandalism, although the attention it draws to a large injustice would tip the moral scales in its favour.

Being reasonable and thoughtful, Dave also recalled having casually carved initials in tree trunks in his youth, which, of course, is also a form of graffiti and vandalism.

Such carvings are rarely art, though some doubtless manage to be - and don't forget the Chatham Islands dendroglyphs, artspeak for tree carvings, of a very different culture.

They were not graffiti but show tree carving can be art.

But modern tagging and bombing employ different media.

When felt-tip pens arrived, they were used quite a lot, but spray paints, sometimes worked with a stencil, can cover a lot of surface very quickly, an important consideration for a graffiti artist but a big negative for owners.

It can be hard to get off and very disfiguring.

The meaningless squiggles defacing the New York subway cars in the 1970s were depressing and interesting only as records of urban decay and discontent.

And graffiti, in turn, can provoke discontent and lead to fatal consequences.

In January 2008, an outraged Auckland property owner stabbed a teenage tagger to death, which produced a law restricting the sale of spray paint and a general crackdown on tagging and all forms of graffiti.

So, yes, graffiti can be art, and political protest and social record, also valuable, but has its down side too. Wednesday's efforts were big, exuberant, bold - very bold - and expressive, but somewhere short of art.

And they're certainly vandalism - unless, of course, they were an unusually cunning promotion of the store's sales.