Graffiti v. Advertising

Crossing the streets of New York, it’s everywhere: public and private buildings, walls, buses, trains and subways. Outdoor advertising and graffiti are both forms of artistic expression that are forced upon the public without prior consent, however only one is protected by the first amendment, while the other is punishable by law.

In 1977, city dwellers saw an average of 2,000 ads each day, in 2007 that number increased by 3,000 ads. A grand total of 5,000 ads that the consumer is forced to absorb on a daily basis. Its on the flyers, billboards, television, commercial vehicles, bus stops, street bulletins, internet, food and beverage labels, newspapers and magazines, radio, banners and the list goes on.

Outdoor advertising has become unavoidable. In urban areas commercial content is placed in our sight and into our consciousness every moment.

Over time, advertising’s dominance will become the “natural” state. Through long-term commercial saturation, it has become implicitly understood by the public that advertising has the right to own, occupy and control every inch of available space.

Graffiti on the other hand is a crude form of self-advertising, not much different from the billboards, posters and flyers that litter city buildings and walls. Then why is it that advertising is viewed as a legal business but graffiti as an illegal form of vandalism?

Paid advertising is considered a legal form of artistic and consumer friendly marketing. It is also considered a form of artistic expression, protected by the first amendment.

Graffiti painting done without the property owner's consent, can be considered vandalism and obstruction to private property. In the U.S. Graffiti is considered up to a fourth degree felony, punishable by a maximum of 163 hours of community service and a $1,000 fine.

Keith Haring, one of the first leading graffiti artists for instance, began his graffiti career using a legal form of self-advertising by placing posters of his uniquely drawn figures and characters in public places. However, as he began drawing directly on subway walls and transit posters, his art under the eye of the authorities altered into a form of vandalism. Only because of the uniqueness of his drawings, were they shown in galleries, published in books and eventually considered “legitimate”.

As the consumer we don’t ask to be subjugated under advertising or graffiti in such a grand scale. However, to the artist, graffiti is in fact no more than an expression of the human spirit; an art in one of its most liberal and expressive forms, and like any other form of art it should be protected by the first amendment.

Both are forced upon us on a daily basis without prior consent, yet advertisers are free from legal restrictions and repercussions.

Thus if one is allowed to freely advertise, then there should be public areas to freely express oneself no matter what form used. Moreover, if freedom of expression under the first amendment protects advertisers why should it neglect to protect modern day graffiti artists? Yet, the individual remains exposed to punishment, while commercial and corporate America remains shielded.

No voice should be silenced!