The debate about what constitutes art vs. graffiti is probably as old as graffiti itself. I was talking to my friend Joey about it the other day and he said what probably delineates it for him is intention. If someone intends to spread joy, inspiration, etc., then it’s art. If they intend to harm, deface, threaten, then it’s graffiti. I agree with that.
Well, however you define it, the City of San Francisco probably defines it differently. To them it’s pretty black and white, or maybe I should say concrete gray and white. Anything that’s not supposed to be on the sidewalk gets a coat of concrete gray paint. This is very welcome when it’s an obvious tag, but less welcome when it’s really a piece of art, as some of the layered, complicated stencil art that appears around the neighborhood is.
Stencils can be created safely at home, allowing these masterpieces to be quickly layed down. Most are only on the sidewalk, not buildings or private property (although some building owners commission them.) Many actually cover unwanted graffiti. I know some may not agree with me, but as someone who walks a lot in the city, I enjoy seeing them.
The artist Eclair Bandersnatch has a distinctive style and often comments on current events. If you live in San Francisco, you most likely have seen Jeremy Novy’s koi fish swimming on street sidewalks. SF Gate reports there are now 2,000 koi throughout the city. And about a month ago, a beautiful three-layered (red, black, white) stencil of a ladybug appeared on our street. I meant to shoot it but it was covered before I could get to it.
I think the bottom line is it doesn’t matter if it’s art or not, what matters is how it makes you feel when you see it. And who can’t help but smile a little at Snoopy?