Politically charged street art should be valued

Street art posters labeling U.S. Representative Maxine Waters as a “poverty pimp” sparked controversy in the communities of California’s 43rd District impacted by the signs. The posters are reminiscent of works by street artists Robbie Conal and Shepard Fairey. Though the “poverty pimp” posters make a strong statement, they blur the line between street art and political campaign tactics. Artists should not be penalized for addressing political themes in their works; street art can be directly connected to political campaigns without losing value as works of art.

Despite their political message, the “poverty pimp” posters seem to fit better into the realm of street art than campaign tools. Graffiti is generally thought of as unwarranted vandalizing of public spaces, while the term “street art” does not carry such a negative connotation. According to Examiner.com, “Street art is basically art created by any artist not sanctioned by a gallery or commissioning body of some sort.”

In addition, as Examiner.com added, the purpose behind this type of art is to comment on “socially relevant themes, or in other words, a protest of some sort,” which explains why authorities tend to respond so negatively to street art. Last month, council members of Clacton-on-Sea, England removed a racially charged Banksy mural. The pseudonymous yet renowned artist is known for creating works that address sensitive topics, such as war, surveillance and poor working conditions, often making political statements about them.

In order to prevent similarly provocative art pieces, some counties have laws prohibiting non-commissioned street art. The Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs has a lengthy application and review process for all street murals. According to the Department of Cultural Affairs’ website, this process includes an application, community meeting, initial review and final review of the proposed work. Though the Department of Cultural Affairs aims to promote creativity in the community, this process undermines the spontaneity and uncensored expression typified by street art.

Freedom of expression allows individuals to critique institutions that shouldn’t confine artistic works. Even seemingly mild forms of censorship, such as the prohibition of street art, can greatly infringe upon freedoms. Artistic expression is the mark of a democratic society and should be respected. Without the guarantee of uncensored expression, society is unable to acknowledge alternate perspectives and risks becoming close-minded. Even though politically tinged street art might make the viewer uncomfortable, it provokes thought and challenges the viewer to reconsider their perspective. It is essential in creating a dialogue about sensitive topics. Street art is accessible. The large scale and public location of street art makes it the ideal medium to address issues that concern the community. Instead of being confined to art institutions, it confronts the viewer in his or her own environment. It is site-specific: The message depends on the context in which it is created and cannot be moved. This makes street art all the more powerful — it sends a direct message that resonates with the immediate community.

Despite ongoing legal battles over graffiti and its presence in urban space, artists should not be restricted by harsh backlash from the community. Street art is a valuable expression of freedom and raises sensitive issues that impact surrounding communities. If artistic production is based solely on political correctness, then confrontational works, including the murals by Los Angeles artist Free Humanity, would not have been possible. Though these works are bound to ruffle some feathers, their potential to create much-needed dialogue outweighs their confrontational nature.

Uninhibited art can expose injustices and promote social change. Street art is a wholly democratic form of expression; it is not exclusive to galleries or museums, but meant for collective viewing. Last month, anonymous L.A. street artist Skid Robot painted murals depicting the dreams and aspirations of the homeless. In a statement to the Huffington Post, Robot said, “I’m drawing attention to a human being who more often than not is looked at as nonexistent.”

Though street art might not address the most comfortable topics, it is a testament to freedom of expression and allows artists to raise thought-provoking questions in public spaces. Art should not be restricted to institutions or bounded by topical constraints; instead, it should be the voice in and of the community.

Just as the “poverty pimp” posters demonstrate, street art can have a political tone without losing its value as a work of art. It can incite action and create a public dialogue in ways other forms of expression cannot. Whether stenciled on the streets or pasted on the side of a building, the value of street art is more than just a can of spray paint.