One of the most well-known names in contemporary art is Banksy, a notorious graffiti artist based in England. But when we consider the fact that one of the most recognizable figures of contemporary creativity remains faceless due to the fact that graffiti artists risk sizable consequences, it begs the question: should graffiti really be considered art?

First, we should start with the basics. What do we consider to be art? An agreeable definition would be that art is a visual expression that exemplifies the artist’s imaginative, creative or technical skill. And by this definition, graffiti easily fits.

But why, then, do street artists fear legal trouble for their creative expression? Can something that is illegal really be considered in the same plane of expression as Van Gogh’s "Starry Night," for example? Additionally, the intention behind street art and graffiti varies widely. While Banksy or Pixnit, another prominent graffiti artist, can be considered an artisan, can we say the same for the delinquent teen who simply defaces the side of a building for the sake of breaking the rules?

Let’s go back to the definition of art. I posed the notion that art must exemplify the artist’s imaginative, creative or technical skill. I would argue that some level of skill is demonstrated in all forms of graffiti. There is an undeniable aesthetic that accompanies this form of art and it takes practice to refine or garner the proper “look.”

But I am still left wrestling with the issue of graffiti’s illegality. Perhaps we can take a look at art censorship of the past.

Most banned art has been censored due to its deemed indecency. In 1565, Michelangelo’s "The Last Judgment"was deemed immoral by many because of its depictions of nudity. This same objection has been placed before countless other pieces throughout art history. And while society’s sensitivity has decreased greatly towards the issue of censorship, graffiti art still tends to offer a platform for artists to push boundaries and create images that incite reactions. Many people find the messages sent by street art to be provocative and inappropriate for the setting.

However, this type of inciting expression often plays an important part in the formation of culture and the way a society or generation reacts to the hard issues that plague the world around them.

Many graffiti artists choose abandoned or dilapidated buildings as their canvases, arguably improving the sight of them. Should we still consider this illegal or worthy of taking action against?

An important bottom line is that vandalism is illegal, and therefore I cannot in good conscience stand behind a blatantly illegal act, no matter its benefit to the community. But I do think that we would do well to give artistic clout to street art that we see and the artists behind it.

Should we consider giving license to certain graffiti artists? Perhaps. But that seems like a slippery slope.

And if graffiti became legal, it would undoubtedly lose its appeal. Part of the allure of graffiti is its rebellious nature. And I am certain that Banksy would not have half of his acquired fame if his true identity were known.

No, I don’t think graffiti should be legal. But, I don’t think this takes away from its inherent value as a work of art.