What do you think? Can pictures of graffiti also be art? Graffiti is often art in and of itself. Some graffiti is truly amazing art. Some, of course, is just ugly vandalism.
I am of the opinion that a picture of just graffiti can be a nice record of the graffiti. There can be real value in that record, but it isn’t likely to be art in and of itself. I am also of the opinion that an image that includes graffiti can be art. It’s much like taking a picture of a statue in isolation versus that same statue being a part of a bigger scene, maybe street photography or maybe a cityscape. One is a record – maybe a valuable or pleasing record – but still a record of someone else’s art. The other is, or at least can be, a new creation, a new piece of art enhanced by the statue but not defined by it.
One of my early focuses of my photography walks, especially those in central Europe, was graffiti. This image is one of my favorites from those walks. The next two posts (Green and Enter That Way) also feature graffiti that, in my mind, enhances the image and maybe even makes the image a new piece of art.
This was taken in that favorite place of mine, Prague. It could be any European city, made European by the “POSTA” box. Otherwise, it could be from any worn-down section of any city.
Is the hand preventing the wall from collapsing? Is the eye watching for additional danger? Do the green letters intentionally point out that the wall is broken? What kind of a wind could have caused that hook to spin and gouge the wall? Is the red pipe causing the damage as it attempts to escape the wall? Does the postman worry that the postal, or should I say POSTA, box will try to escape as well?
Some images have many stories to tell. This image prompts those stories in the form of questions.