While the law dictates that graffiti is an act of vandalism, there are many that believe graffiti is far more than just that; it has artistic value, it brightens cities, and is an unconventional presentation of original art. Those who are in the arts are more inclined to appreciate the artistic and expressive merit of graffiti, as well as have a certain respect for the especially honest nature of the art form. Graffiti artists do not present their work with the intent of receiving recognition or financial reward, rather they aim to share their masterpieces with the public while constantly running the risk of prosecution. Graffiti artists, like other artists, create for the sake of self-expression.
George C. Stowers, a student from the University of Miami, wrote an essay in 1997 concerning the recognition of some forms of graffiti as art. In his essay, Stowers takes the position that certain types of graffiti should be considered art, due to its aesthetic value and emotional appeal. Having taken classes on aesthetics and art history, Stowers was able to provide aesthetic criteria which he believes graffiti art satisfies. He argues that graffiti, like all art, can be "analyzed according to the elements of lines, color, and structures that are present in the work in order to produce a narrative," (Stowers). Another significant reason Stowers believes graffiti can be viewed as art is by considering the producer's intention. Like any other artist, "graffitists intend their work to be apprehended as art that can communicate feelings and ideas to the audience. This is in line with Tolstoy's mandate that art must allow people to express ideas and share in each other's feelings via the artwork" (Stowers). Not only does graffiti hold the power to communicate, Stowers says, but it also "beautifies the community by appearing on areas that would normally be eyesores, such as a wall in a vacant lot or an abandoned building," (Stowers). In this way, Stowers argues, graffiti artists are no different than any other artists, since their intentions are the same: to interrupt the monotony of everyday life and evoke genuine emotion from their audience.
Read more on this position:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/11/when-does-graffiti-become-art/graffiti-is-young-cool-creative-let-it-happen
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/11/when-does-graffiti-become-art/graffiti-is-a-public-good-even-as-it-challenges-the-law