In this blog I will discuss the extent to which graffiti and street art can be considered a form of contentious politics. In order to answer this question – I will first have to define the key ideas of; graffiti, street art and contentious politics. To start with street art, Holly Eva Ryan defined it as: “Words or images that have been etched, scrawled, painted or pasted onto walls, pavements or other surfaces, usually outdoors and/or within the public view” (p. 133). It is also worth noting that street art is best defined as an umbrella term in which it encompasses a variety of different styles – such as tags, murals, stencils and of course

graffiti. Speaking of which, graffiti is a genre of street art that usually refers to stylised text based art, this can be anything from quotes to statements to names. Finally, Contentious politics is a way political actors direct their disagreement with authority; carried out by anyone who has the aim to be disruptive, a great example are protests and strikes or any other form of civil disobedience.

After outlining the definitions it’s easy to see why the question could be a topic for debate, it essentially asks if street art is inherently ‘disruptive’. There are many angles to answer this question from and the first is further exploring the idea of contentious politics and its forms. An issue with this however is the fact that contentious politics is simply an idea – there are no such law against contentious politics and there is no strict “yes or no” answers, and here’s why: Whilst a review article by Sidney Tarrow on the idea is the earliest collection of understandings of the concept, the limits on how much political actors must disturb before it is considered contentious politics is left intentionally vague – (most) Strikes are without doubt political actors disturbing the government or other authorities in order to try and force change, if only one person strikes, the pressure on the government or any other body is likely negligible. While it is still disruptive in a minuscule form can that truly be considered contentious politics? If the answer is no then there must be a line drawn between one person striking (insignificant) and ten thousand people striking (significant) at what number does it become significant. This way of trying to ‘draw a line’ around actions is a tricky method of approaching these types of ideas  – which is why this comparative or marginal way of thinking has shown the extent to which street art is contentious politics cannot be totally contentious or not at all contentious.

A secondary way to tackle the question is by looking at the effects street art has had in the political landscape – if it is truly disruptive real world examples may possibly be able to connect street art/graffiti and tangible change. Banksy is an icon in British culture for their street art as they created Britain’s favourite work of art. Although the iconic pieces are not written but rather drawn, Banksy pushes whatever message they wish to send effectively – As they are political pieces that usually receive widespread coverage, Banksy is the one of the best examples for potentially contentious street art; but has Banksy ever forced change? For one, Banksy’s pieces have paved the way for other street artists. The term “legitimising street art” sums up the effect they have had on not only British but global approaches to street art. In 2007 some action was taken as Transport for London painted over their work – Citing that graffiti created a “general atmosphere of neglect and social decay which in turn encourages crime”. A government body has taken action due to the disruptive nature of street art, that is by definition contentious politics to a large extent.

To further this idea, Transport for London’s stance leads nicely into the legality discourse surrounding street art and graffiti. Many local devolved governments have power over what is and isn’t legal and which legal penalties will apply, in the UK there are designated zones where graffiti is allowed and encouraged but outside of those, legal penalties vary based on what was vandalised and how badly. In Brighton and Hove graffiti will be removed if it is on (most) council property,  Offensive graffiti or street art is removed and the person could be jailed, definitions of ‘Offensive’ graffiti vary from council to council; Brighton and Hove council list swear words as offensive alongside hate speech and extremism and this will be removed by the council. However if the graffiti is not offensive the council will not help with removing it on private property. This is relevant to the question as arguably the most famous piece of street art in Brighton is Banksy’s ‘Kissing Coppers’ which was done on private property and was repeatedly vandalised, the council took little interest aside from minor fines to vandals of the pub which the art sat on. The piece was significantly more controversial at the time – depending on your interpretation, it critised the British government for the illegality of same sex marriage or civil partnerships at the time – at the time it was much more provocative and within a year after it was put up same sex civil partnerships became legal. Whilst not a concrete connection between a stencil and legislation, street art can be viewed as a barometer of sorts for public mood, instead of pushing the public’s opinion towards one way or another – it represents and reacts as to which way it has already been pushed. In the same way strikes represent and react to conditions and/or wages of those striking.

The arguments shown lean towards street art being a form of practicing contentious politics to a good extent – whilst some graffiti are just tags of names others provoke a reaction out of the public, councils, or government. I will end this blog with a Banksy twist on Women’s rights activist Emma Goldman’s quote. “If graffiti changed anything it would be illegal”.