Graffiti and Public Art: A Shared Language of the Street
The relationship between graffiti and public art is often misunderstood and cast in opposition rather than seen as part of a shared cultural evolution. Yet the two are kin, not adversaries. Born from the same urban fabric, they speak a common language: visibility, territory, identity, and voice. You cannot fully understand the value of public art in contemporary cities without acknowledging its roots in the graffiti movement.
The Origins of Graffiti: Rebellion, Identity, and Visibility
Graffiti emerged in the late 20th century as a form of unsanctioned expression. A way for marginalised voices to inscribe their presence on a city that often rendered them invisible. From the subway cars of 1970s New York to the laneways of Berlin and Melbourne, graffiti was never just about tags or territorial markings. It was about being seen in systems that overlooked.
At its core, graffiti is democratic. Anyone can pick up a spray can and claim a surface. It challenges institutional definitions of value, authorship, and space.
From Illegal to Institutional: The Shift Toward Public Art
As cities began to grapple with the growing presence of graffiti, two parallel forces emerged: one of enforcement and erasure, the other of recognition and adaptation. The latter birthed a new approach: the commissioning of public art as a way to harness the energy, aesthetic, and message of graffiti in a more formalised, sanctioned context.
Artists like Keith Haring, Jean-Michel Basquiat, and later Shepard Fairey and Banksy exemplified this shift. Their work rooted in street culture but crossing over into gallery spaces, cultural institutions, and civic commissions. Public art did not replace graffiti. It absorbed its visual intensity and social urgency, and in turn, gained legitimacy in the eyes of planners, councils, and developers.
Influence and Exchange: A Two-Way Street
Today, public art and graffiti continue to exist in dialogue. Street artists often evolve into public artists. Public murals, in turn, influence graffiti styles by introducing formal composition, conceptual depth, and larger-scale ambition. Many of the world’s most celebrated muralists began as graffiti writers, developing their style illegally before finding recognition through more formal commissions.
This exchange enriches both forms:
Graffiti brings rawness, immediacy, and a subcultural edge.
Public art brings structure, longevity, and civic integration.
Together, they create a layered, dynamic urban visual language.
Shared Goals, Different Contexts
At their best, both graffiti and public art reclaim space. They challenge homogeneity. They provoke emotion, question power, and invite connection. They disrupt the visual monotony of urban environments, offering moments of beauty, humour, or resistance.
The difference lies largely in context, not in spirit. Graffiti is spontaneous, unauthorised, and often ephemeral. Public art is intentional, negotiated, and enduring. But both speak to the power of art in public space; not just to decorate, but to communicate.
Working With, Not Against
As a mural artist, I believe in working with the energy of the street, not against it. When a mural responds to the environment, rather than ignoring it, it earns respect. In laneways and underpasses, in transitional zones often marked by tagging, a well-executed mural doesn’t suppress graffiti culture; it enters into dialogue with it. It holds space rather than erasing it.
In this way, public art becomes a continuation of graffiti's legacy. Not a replacement, but a reinterpretation. A way of giving voice with permission, without losing the pulse that gave it power in the first place.
To divide graffiti from public art is to miss the point. Both are acts of claiming space. Both are born from the city. And both remind us that art, whether sanctioned or spontaneous, belongs not just in galleries, but in the grit and rhythm of the streets.