Graffiti is Art

The impression by communities today that graffiti is the defacement of property, and a bane upon the urban landscape is unfortunate. Of course it is understandable when the work emits racist comments, or other socially inappropriate messages, however in reference to Bojorquez’s style of ‘Cholo’ graffiti, how can a community, or government ban the work, or paint over it. Graffiti is more than a set of words on a wall or building it is a form of personal, communal, and historical expression, to cover it up is to deny that the person/people who put it there, and their histories can be covered up to. You would not put a sheet over “The Last Supper”, why paint over a piece of graffiti. Not only that, but the amount of money that is spent on covering up this art work could go to something of actual importance such as the homeless. Also when a city is created of boring grey buildings, would it not be beautiful to walk through colorful buildings? Colorful because of artwork, history, and personal expression, a city created by the individuals who inhabit it. I question this within CalArts, when there is a school filled with talented artists, should not the entire thing be covered with artwork? Instead when you enter the building it looks more like a clinical institution. We need more than the sublevel.