Public Art vs. Graffiti: why is it important?

What differentiates public art from graffiti, and why does it matter?

Back in January, McDonald’s covered a beloved mural for one of their own advertisements. The Butetown-based artwork was done by Yusuf Ismail and Shawqi Hasson, Cardiff City football creatives. The goal of the mural, according to the artists, was to acknowledge and represent non-white football fans.

Wales Online reported, “McDonald’s said it was ‘unaware’ of the artwork, but after an outpouring of anger at the move, which was branded ‘insensitive’ and ‘embarrassing,’ the restaurant instructed the artist to repaint it on the site.”

While the mural was done in a public space, the fast-food chain painting over art brought up valid, age-old questions regarding who could paint over a public work, if anyone.

There are no official rules or laws when it comes to the handling of professional, public art, as opposed to graffiti. While graffiti is still in the same vicinity as public art, it is often unwarranted and typically seen as less attractive.

However, this instance is not the first time these questions have been brought up, especially with a street artist like Banksy still being active today. An article by Peter N. Salib of the University of Chicago outlines the many disputes concerning Banksy and the technical ownership of his work.

While graffiti is still in the same vicinity as public art, it is often unwarranted and typically seen as less attractive.

In 2014, Bristol man Dennis Stinchome found a work by Banksy that had been done without permission from the city, and was also “in violation of trespass and vandalism laws.” This work has since been known as “Mobile Lovers.”

He planned to auction off the work and put the money towards after-school programming for young students, which was a group run by Stinchome himself.

However, the city took possession of the painting after claiming that it was rightfully theirs, due to the work being painted on a public sidewalk. Banksy himself then wrote a letter, explaining that the rightful owner was indeed Stinchome.

Putting their message in a public space allows for a platform in which everyone has to listen, or at least acknowledge.

This resolution was successful in this case, but it is often much more complicated than that.

According to Salib, “Artists themselves might attempt to claim ownership rights, as Banksy seems to have implicitly done with his letter granting his rights in Mobile Lovers to the Boys’ Club. But because street artists generally break the law to produce their art, such subsequent appearances to take ownership of and, therefore, responsibility for such art will be rare.”

“... The question of public powers to control street art is beyond its scope,” said Salib as well.

While the question may be too broad to have a set answer for every case, why is it so important to put thought into this?

Public art, like murals, oftentimes have a meaning that is connected to its location. For example, “Cardiff’s ‘Mona Lisa’” has since become a symbol for the city and its residents, with their support leading to the mural’s restoration.

All art of this kind gives a voice to people who express themselves artistically and have something to say. Putting their message in a public space allows for a platform in which everyone has to listen, or at least acknowledge.