Many support graffiti in the sense that it requires creativity and comes in many perceptions that represents the culture in a community (Torres, 2012).
According to Anderson (2012), graffiti is an art as it represents one's creativity and in itself it attracts. Despite its presentation in the society, graffiti is an art if it is in the right place (Anderson, 2012). According to the author, both graffiti and art have a valuing ownership and property, only that the most criticism of graffiti is that it destroys city and private property. This argument cannot disqualify graffiti from the realm of art (p.2). The author further argues that, graffiti has been in a state of resistance by white middle-class since history; therefore, it can be regarded as an art of resistance (p. 2). Graffiti is an art and is about expressions that can either be good or bad (White, 2014). White argues that, even some art may look beautiful or distorted. Sometimes, art can evoke pleasure or pain. The author further argues that just as graffiti, art can also be motivated for selfless or selfish reasons (p. 1). Graffiti has based its roots since ancient history during the emergence of hip-hop culture. It means that graffiti is a representation of culture and should be recognised as an art. The reason why it appears on walls is because the method applies different and unique ways that can be drawn easily. It should not be discarded due to its simplicity and creativity (White, 2012, p. 8).
Mettler (2012) revealed the reason why graffiti is not regarded as an art; instead it is viewed as vandalism. Since 1990s, the U.S government has been setting laws that are meant to ban graffiti on public and private walls (Mettler, 2012). Most municipality in the U.S views graffiti as illegal activities that destroys public and private properties, and, above all, undermines the aesthetic integrity in the society. Since 1960s, graffiti was marked as a shift from gang-related to territorial deviances.
