Can Street Art Be Institutionalized?

The word “graffiti” conjures a lot of things in my mind: vivid colors, mysterious words and names, and most importantly, the chance of getting caught. To me, one of the crucial characteristics in defining graffiti is its implicit illegal nature. Part of what inspires awe when you see a large mural is the question of “how?”. How did that street artist create something so complex under the pressure of possible arrest? How did no one see them creating these masterpieces?

Graffiti is becoming more and more accepted within mainstream society and within the art community. Artists such as Banksy, local headliners such as Borf, and exhibitions such as MOCA’s highest attended (well, second highest) exhibition, "Art in the Streets", and the National Portrait Gallery’s 2008 show, "Recognize!",  have all garnered the interest of the public and the art community. But it leads to questions about how to integrate something so inherently outside of the mainstream into the institution. More and more graffiti artists have become not only accepted, but embraced by many galleries, museums and auction houses. But how can you buy and sell something that is meant to grace the side of subway cars and buildings?

Last week's Washington City Paper featured a story, "Tagging Rights: Nonprofits, art galleries, and party planners are feting D.C.'s graffiti scene. Have they also tamed it?". They discuss a local organization, MuralsDC, a group that strives to integrate street artists into mainstream society. They are trying to redirect these artists towards legal endeavors. Artists attend classes where they can hone their craft, and are encouraged to explore careers in the fine arts. They also participate in legal means of street art. Pre-approved areas are converted into public murals that represent the community. But what happens when illegal works are replaced with these collaborative murals? Can street art that has been approved by the community still be considered “graffiti”?

Graffiti’s inherent anti-authoritarian stance has been changing for the past 10 years, at least. It is now accepted, praised, and desired. But are these so-called “graffiti ambassadors” helping the medium, or just borrowing the aesthetic?