Blog #7: Graffiti Is Art

    In the reading, Graffiti Is Art, Charles “Chaz” Bojorquez first describes graffiti as a language to express one's self. However, there are many anti-graffiti people who only relate graffiti to vandalism. Oftentimes, graffiti is seen as meaningless and is “a symbol of the loss of moral control in our society” (1). However, Charles “Chaz” Bojorquez describes his journey as a graffiti artist to be a positive one. Graffiti was a way for him to understand who he is as a Latino in Los Angeles. Bojorquez describes his style of graffiti to be

By Chaz Bojorquez

“cholo” style. The gang wall writings he participated in in Los Angeles are called placas, which are symbols used to mark territory and was a way to show loyalty to their neighborhood. In other words, “Cholo graffiti is graffiti by the neighborhood for the neighborhood (4).” In Los Angeles, graffiti can be understood as a way for the artist to make their presence known. Graffiti Is a symbol for the youth as a way of showing their pride and strength, and demanding respect. Bojorquez also describes graffiti artists as evolving and actually using their art to make a name for themselves. Many graffiti artists have decided to go to school and receive a degree from major art universities and Bojorquez even describes his time working in advertising. Throughout the essay, Bojorquez defends graffiti as a form of art and wants to prove its legitimacy. Graffiti art has even been bought and sold in galleries, it has been collected, and it is considered a contemporary American art. Although I consider graffiti to be a form of art, it’s still difficult for me to consider all graffiti acceptable. I understand that it’s a way to speak of one's identity and a way to show unity. I’ve admired many graffiti artists and especially praise the graffiti work from the 1980s. However, it’s difficult for me to accept it when it’s used to censor or cover another work of art. For example, there was a mural I would always drive by that I loved and one day there was graffiti covering the work of art I once admired. Overall, I agree that graffiti can be used in a positive way, but I think it crosses the line when it’s used to cover another work of art.