“Art inspires, produces an unwillingness to be satisfied with what we have and a desire for something better” – Russell L. Ackoff. This quote serves as the best way to define what art should achieve to be considered an art. Graffiti, as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary (2019), is “words or drawings, particularly funny, rude or political, on walls, doors, etc. in public places”. Graffiti, as defined by many government officials, does not constitute art, due to its connotations of crime and urban criminality and its association with vandalism. I will directly examine political graffiti and see whether graffiti composed for a political purpose, whether criticizing government policy, the economic situation, or international affairs, can be considered art. All in all, I think political graffiti should be considered art as its purpose of trying to invoke political change, allows us to desire change. Although this may not always be the case, as governments have tried to suppress it and label it illegal and some aspects of it have led to higher levels of decline in urban areas. However, overall, I think political graffiti has been more influential in advocating for social change for minority groups and has presented itself successfully as an art form, although the influence has waned to some extent because it is considered " illegal". plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Political graffiti can serve as a means of protest against unjust aspects of urban society. For example, the postindustrial economy in the United States in the 1960s, which catered primarily to middle- and upper-class citizens, left many working-class citizens discriminated against and impoverished. Social, economic and cultural changes have left many working-class citizens behind, causing an “urban crisis,” especially in states like New York. Social criticism began to arise, against this regime of injustice, swallowed up in the form of graffiti. For example, in New York in the 1960s graffiti artists began writing political messages on subway trains, and later in the 1980s hip hop artists began using graffiti as a protest against the police. It could be argued that this is art and its contextual meaning means that it expresses the movement of urban decline and injustice. Political graffiti can therefore encapsulate current social thoughts and allow the voices of minorities in society, such as the working class, to gain a voice within society. For this reason, graffiti should be considered an art as it allows people to express their desire for a more benevolent society. However, the political message and meaning of graffiti can clearly be changed and removed by governments, to suit their political motivations. Higher authorities – especially in New York, as stated by Austin (2002), ultimately have the power to label graffiti a “crime” and can do so if a piece of graffiti goes against their political opinion or heavily criticizes them. The state has substantial authority and coercive tactics to subjugate large numbers of people into believing that political graffiti has no cultural significance and can easily dismiss it as “vandalism.” This is further reinforced by Iversan (2010) who states that New York officials, in the 2000s, are still using propaganda and censorship to shut down graffiti and trying to dissuade people from doing so. Such measures includepublic shaming: “convicted graffiti writers are forced to clean up graffiti while wearing pink vests, in the hope that the associated 'terror of humiliation' will prevent others from writing graffiti. Furthermore, these governments are allocating large sums of money to reduce graffiti, for example, $13.1 million spent in Brisbane from 2012 to 2016. These state motions are trying to stop people from using graffiti as a protest movement political, which limits its value as art, especially its value within a street or public context. If effective, as seen in New York, then the purpose and message of graffiti cannot be explored, thus diminishing its value as art. Therefore, the state has incredible power to dictate whether political graffiti within a street and urban context should be considered art. On the contrary, one can respond that the government is trying to reduce political graffiti, since paradoxically it can lead to more crime instead of inspiring people to achieve better results. Graffiti made on public and private property can be considered acts of vandalism, and its glorification as an "art form" and having a "purpose" allows graffiti artists to exploit it and needlessly vandalize property. Graffiti can cause more noticeable signs of decay in urban environments, which could weaken the message the graffiti artist is trying to convey and could even lead to further action to get rid of it. To combat this, many governments have adopted zero tolerance policies to combat graffiti. This is inspired by the broken window theory, first coined by Kelling and Wilson (1982), which states that visible signs of decay create a criminal environment and crime must be stopped at the start, so that it does not manifest itself in a bigger crime. In terms of graffiti, an overabundance can attract more crime and can make an area appear more abandoned. This notion ultimately states that political graffiti causes more harm than good, and its use as an effective source of political protest is therefore limited. In contrast to the previous statement, libertarian socialists such as Noam Chomsky would claim that graffiti is not vandalism, nor does it impose more crime. Instead, it scares the authority and that is why it is made illegal. The higher authority, according to Chomsky, does not want people to engage in revolutionary art since it can ultimately scrutinize the status quo and ultimately bring communities together. By declaring political messages, in the form of graffiti, as "criminal" rather than artistic, the main people in power can divert people's minds from the crimes of the rich and powerful and, in a sense, cause a "moral panic". which distracts people from these problems. Furthermore, Powers (1996) follows a similar path and argues that the novelty of graffiti did not lie simply in its artistic value, but in the context and perspective in which it was produced. Graffiti art offered a glimpse into the life of an inner-city subculture, such as the hip-hop scene in the 1970s. However, it can be said that this aspect has been suppressed by a “dominant subculture” where they have imposed sanctions and tried to suppress the graffiti art movement to conform to traditional norms and values. Therefore, it can be argued that graffiti should not be considered a crime and the state definition of what graffiti is should not deviate it from being an art form. The context in which graffiti is presented is an important question about how people perceive the art. and as we have seen recently, political graffiti has made its way into the.