Spray-painted graffiti can be seen on city walls or on trains in many cities, and New York is no exception. Since the late eighties, New York City’s policy on graffiti has been based on the broken windows thesis. This theory, introduced in 1982 In Atlantic Monthly by James Q Wilson and George L Kelling, argues that petty non-violent crimes such as the creation of graffiti increase overall crime. The theory reasons that if minor signs of disorder such as broken windows and graffiti are left unfixed, potential criminals assume that chaos reigns, and commit more crimes. As Lieutenant Steve Mona of the New York City Vandal Squad state in his anti-graffiti program, ‘Graffiti gives the look of disorder, as if nobody is in control. Graffiti is the first sign that a neighborhood is falling apart.’
New York has spent a large amount of time and money fighting graffiti in the belief that these efforts will send a message that there is someone in charge, and overall crime will fall. However, while the application of the ‘broken windows' thesis is credited by some as causing the fall in crime in New York, there is little evidence supporting this. Instead, many criminologists attribute the reduction in crime to a collection of causes, only one of which is the attention to small, visible crime by the police. However, of these small crimes, graffiti still gets a particularly bad rap from the New York City Transit Authority. According to its website, 'Graffiti has long been viewed as the most obvious sign of urban blight.' Reasons for concern expressed by the Mayor of New York about the presence of graffiti include the belief that graffiti is a threat to the quality of life in the city, and that it leads to greater acts of crime. The Mayor also argues that it causes millions of dollars of damage to property holders and to the city, and that graffiti tags (decorated initials) are a means of communication for gangs.
While the Mayor's contentions are valid, they only apply to the most degenerate types of graffiti. City administrators lump together all forms of graffiti: artistic, meaningful, and gang-or drug-related, into one undesirable group. This oversimplifies the realities of street art. Graffiti artist Dmitri Wright comments: 'Graft has a multitude of forms and meanings but a lot of the connotations of the art form and how it is linked to street culture create a divide. All its opponents need to do is look at some of it. It is absolutely spectacular, but sometimes people can't get past their own culture.'
The beautiful graffiti-art that can be found today throughout the city, on commissioned walls and in art galleries, is an expression of New York like no other art form. Its artists either come from the city itself or are drawn to the city from around the world. Surely, in the right context, graffiti-art can become a powerful tool to promote New York City’s identity and originality. Although graffiti first emerged as an illegal form of expression, its influence on the art world is increasingly present, and many large-scale pieces are impressive not only in their size, but also in their artistic themes and techniques. Today, New York graffiti-art on canvas can sell for tens of thousands of dollars.
Graffiti New York-style has its roots in a social movement of young people in the seventies and eighties, and the themes in graffiti-art were undeniably a reflection of social factors at play in New York. The city's youths wanted to speak out about the issues that affected them and have their messages heard. Kids with nothing more than ingenuity could gain recognition as minor celebrities. Graffiti artist King Bee explains: 'In the world of graffiti, every writer or artist, one way or another, participates in the fame game. They all seek recognition for their creativity in the who's who in the graffiti game.'
Graffiti grew in part out of a reaction to the fact that the city was becoming covered in advertisements. City administrators did not see the connection between the rise of advertising saturating the landscape, and the increasing saturation of the city with graffiti. It was a natural progression that the youth of the day would use the same tools to sell themselves that the corporations were using to sell products to the public.
When considering approaches to the graffiti issue, there should be more productive ways to combat graffiti than simply banning it. The most common alternative suggested is creating a legitimate outlet for the graffiti urges of young people. Private groups such as The Phun Phactony have put this concept into action. Pat DiLillo, founder of The Phun Phactory, explains the logic behind his organization: 'I figured if I created a place for the young people to paint [graffiti], then it would eliminate the legal graffiti. Many of these artists start out as vandals. There is nothing for them to do; there's no youth program or anything.’
Many graffiti pieces in the city, far from being related to juvenile delinquency, are dedicated to powerful social issues. Though their messages may be the same, ties between the city and graffiti artists are rarely sought and never formed, although many socially influenced pieces display the potential for creating such bonds. By providing a legal medium for the artistic impulses of the city’s youth, the city could form a relationship with that generation as well as gain a beautified urban environment.
