Is Street Art a Crime? An Attempt at Examining Street Art Using Criminology

Advances in Applied Sociology

2012. Vol.2, No.1, 53-58

Published Online March 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/aasoci) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/aasoci.2012.21007

Is Street Art a Crime? An Attempt at Examining Street Art

Using Criminology

Zeynep Alpaslan

Department of Sociology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

Email: z_alpaslan@hacettepe.edu.tr

Received February 1st, 2012; revised February 29th, 2012; accepted March 13th, 2012

A clear and basic definition is the fundamental element in understanding, thus explaining any social sci-

entific concept. Street art is a social phenomenon, characterized by its illegal nature, which social scien-

tists from several subjects have increasingly been examining, interpreting and discussing for the past 50

years. Even though the concept itself has been defined much more clearly over the years, its standing

concerning whether it is a crime or form of art is still a borderline issue. This paper attempts to first try to

define street art under a type of crime, then examine it using criminological perspective, with crimino-

logical and deviance theories in order to understand and explain it better using an example, the KÜF Pro-

ject from Ankara Turkey.

Keywords: Street Art; Definition; Criminology; Crime Theory; KÜF Project

Introduction

Art, in the general sense, is the process and/or product of de-

liberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses

and/or emotions. Street Art is a form of subcultural activity that

is defined as unsanctioned visual art developed and/or practiced

in public spaces. This form of art has generally been seen as a

post graffiti writing movement and is often characterized by its

illegal nature (Hundertmark, 2003). Even though street art car-

ries a much different meaning from its predecessor traditional

graffiti artwork, it does include modern graffiti, art intervention,

flash mobbing, guerrilla art, sculpture, stencil graffiti, sticker

art, street poster art and wheatpasting, street installations and

video projection. Typically, the term is used to distinguish con-

temporary public-space artwork from territorial graffiti, van-

dalism, and corporate art. John Fekner defines street art as “all

art on the street that’s not graffiti” (Lewisohn, 2008).

Street art is a powerful platform for reaching the public due

to its visual advantages. Its philosophy includes a strong sense

of activism and subversion. The universal theme in most, if not

all, is “reclaiming the city” and adapting visual artwork into a

format which utilizes public space, allowing its artist, who may

otherwise feel disenfranchised, to reach a much broader audi-

ence than traditional artwork and/or galleries would allow.

“For the street artists, the medium is all forms of public

expression and the message is resistance to the uniformity

of the city and all that it embodies. This idea of resistance

to the city is not only resistance to the visual landscape of

the urban environment, but also to the revision of what it

stands for and who stands for it.”

Justin ARMSTRONG (Armstrong, 2005)

When the need for artistic expression and free speech created

by oppression, regardless of why it is created, is not possible,

individuals who wish to communicate their emotions and ideas

seek alternative means of expression and street art acts as a

readily available vehicle for those who chose to benefit from

what it has to offer. The street artists, who use the technologies

of the modern time to claim space, communicate ideas, and

express social and/or political views, have motivations and

objectives as varied as the artists themselves. Yet there is a con-

stantly looming threat of facing consequences for displaying

their art. For this reason many of them choose to protect their

identities and reputation by remaining anonymous. With the

commercialization of street art, in most cases, even with legally

exhibited art, the artists tend to choose anonymity.

Street Art: Around the World and in Turkey

There are some key locations around the world that are con-

sidered as source and inspiration for street art culture in gen-

eral.

In East Europe, most post communist countries have a very

vibrant street art culture. In the North Norway, Stavanger is host

to the annual Nuart Festival; one of Europe’s leading events

dedicated to promoting street art. In the West England, London

is one of the most pro-graffiti cities in the world. Ironically, it is

also one of the cities where street art is officially condemned

and heavily punished by law. Mostly because of Banksy’s suc-

cess, Bristol is part of a vibrant street art scene too. On the

other side of the ocean, in North America USA, New York City

is considered the home of street art and in South America Bra-

zil, São Paulo is another city viewed as one of the capitals of

street art. While Australia is home to one of the worlds most

active and diverse street art cultures in Melbourne, Asia has yet

to catch up on the hype. As for the Middle East, street art is

slowly emerging; Iranian artist A1one’s has been interviewed

by Tokyo-based design magazine PingMag about his works on

Tehran walls (Uleshka, 2007); The Israeli West Bank barrier

has become a site for street art, reminiscent in this sense of the

Berlin Wall; Turkey has a growing number of local artists,

while many foreign artists also exhibit their works in İstanbul.

“The street art works that are seen especially in İstanbul,

Z. ALPASLAN

increase day by day. Due to the fact that having many tou-

ristic features, it is possible to see the pieces of many Tur-

kish and foreign artists around Taksim and its environs.”

Tunc Dindas (Dindas, 2009)

If Street Art Is a Crime … Which Type of

Crime Is It?

Modern graffiti is essentially illegal, because it has not been

accepted by society (Phillips, 1999). Some researchers sugges-

ted that authorities have criminalized street art by manipulating

public opinions through the media (Ferrell, 1996). Joe Austin

argues that the Mass Transit Authorities use their actions against

street artists to divert public attention away from problems hap-

pening in the cities instead of legalizing it and repurposing the

use of tax money somewhere else (Austin, 2001). Street artists,

who mostly are taxpayers themselves, argue that they too have

ownership over public spaces that have been unfairly taken

over by advertisers (Times, 1971). Ironically, street art, which

is considered illegal, gains permission to be displayed when

endorsed by corporations (Niccolai, 2001). This reveals a dou-

ble standard and indicates that certain groups in society enjoy

privileges when deciding what is art or crime (Dickson, 2008).

Judgments such as “consensus”, “harm”, “injury”, “offender”,

and “victim” do not have clear, unequivocal definitions and are

always informed by contestable, epistemological, moral, and

political assumptions (De Haan, 1990). But for the sake of ar-

gument, presuming that street art is actually a form of crime,

which can cause “harm”, and the street artist is a criminal, an

“offender” that offends “victim”s, it should be possible to de-

fine it under one of the predefined and widely accepted crime

types such as: Organized, Corporate, State, State-Corporate, White-

Collar, Blue-Collar, Political, Public-Order Crimes or Juvenile

Delinquency.

Street Art … An Org an ized Crime?

Organized crime or criminal organizations are national, local

and/or transnational groupings of highly centralized enterprises,

run by criminals engaging in illegal activity mostly for the

purpose of monetary profit. Street artists may work on their

own or they may work in groups. Those who chose to act as a

whole or as a group instead of acting as individuals may even

be disciplined enough to be considered organized. Yet since the

basic, primary motivation is neither financial gain, nor is it caus-

ing damage in a destructive or ill intentioned manner, as terror-

ist organizations, can street art still be considered a kind of

organized crime?

Street Art … A Corporate Crime?

Corporate crime refers to crimes committed either by a cor-

poration, by individuals acting on behalf of a corporation or

other business entities. Just by this general description, it is safe

to say that it has nothing to do with street art.

Street Art … A State Crim e?

State crime is activity or failures to act that break the state’s

own criminal law or public international law. This said, the

only way street art could be categorized as a state crime would

be if in fact the State itself were to use street art as a mean to

break its own criminal law or public international law. Unless

this is the situation, it could be argued that some of the actions

of the State such as banning street art or punishing street artists

could be considered a violation or oppression of personal free-

dom, freedom of thought and thus could be, in a way, a state

crime itself.

Street Art … A State-Corporate Crime?

State-corporate crime refers to crimes that result from pub-

lic-private partnership and inherent distorted relations of the

state and the policies and practices of commercial corporations

surfacing as budget-bonus crime. Again, it is safe to say this

topic has nothing to do with street art.

Street Art … A Whit e- Col la r Cri me ?

White-collar crime is a financially motivated, economic, non-

violent crime committed for illegal monetary gain. Sutherland

(1939) defines white-collar crime as a crime committed by a

person of respectability and high social status in the course of

his occupation (HG Legal Directories, 2012). Street art is non-

violent, but at this point it is safe to say that even though there

has been examples of street artists who have made financial

profit by doing commercial work or exhibitions in galleries,

street art’s basic motivation is not an economic one and as such

it would not count as a white-collar crime.

Street Art … A Blue-Collar Crime?

Blue-collar crime is any crime committed by an individual

from a lower social class as opposed to white-collar crime whi-

ch is associated with crime committed by individuals of a hig-

her social class and blue-collar crimes are crimes that happen

on the streets everyday that can include, but are not limited to:

Kidnapping, Rape, Shoplifting or Vandalism.

Vandalism is generally defined as ruthless destruction or

spoiling of anything beautiful or venerable (Oxford English Dic-

tionary, 2008). It covers criminal damage towards any property

without permission of the owner. The definitions of vandalism

leave loop holes for what street art can be considered. For ex-

ample, an esthetically pleasing design done on a blank or bor-

ing surface would not be the destruction or spoiling of anything

beautiful or venerable. Neither would street art done on a prop-

erty which did not belong to one individual, but considered

public space. On the contrary, it could improve the urban space.

It is accepted that private citizens commit vandalism when

they willfully damage or deface the property of others or the

commons. Yet again, the matter comes down to one crucial

point: the definition of damaging. If it is done in an artistic

nature, even though carried out illegally or without the property

owner’s permission, can it not be that the final product is actu-

ally improving instead of damaging? And if so, would it still be

considered vandalism?

Some people become cops because they want to make the

world a better place. Some people become vandals be-

cause they want to make the world a better looking place

Bansky (Bansky, 2005)

Street Art … A Juv enil e De li nqu enc y?

Juvenile delinquency, also known as youth crime, is partici-

pation in illegal behavior by minors who fall under a statutory

Z. ALPASLAN

age limit (Siegel & Welsh, 2011) For many reasons, and with

many examples, it is possible to categorize street art under this

heading, yet there is one crucial point that again makes this

effort fruitless: the fact that even though there are many under

aged street artists, most of them are of age. In Australia many

state governments have banned the sale or possession of spray

paint to those under the age of 18 (age of majority). In New

Zealand, a new legislation adopted in 2008 included a ban on

the sale of paint spray cans to persons under 18.

Street Art … A Politica l Crime?

States define any behavior perceived as a threat, real or

imagined, to the state’s survival including violent and/or non-

violent oppositional crimes, as political crimes. As a result

there is a possibility that a conduct, which would normally not

be considered a crime, to be criminalized at the convenience of

the group holding power. The morality of a law, which simply

criminalizes ordinary political dissent, is questionable. In some

situations art does present dissent with current regimes, and/or

political situations, and this may be deemed threatening by the

group holding power. In other situations the mere presence of

street art may be considered a threat due to the understanding

that monitoring and maintaining urban environments in a wel-

lordered condition, meaning free of street art, may stop further

street art or as the Broken Window Theory (Wilson & Kelling,

1984) put’s it—vandalism, as well as an escalation into more

serious crime. Yet, all this raises another important question: Is

it not possible to think that all art with political dissent and all

artists who create them could be offensive to the State at one

point or the other, regardless of whether or not they actually do

pose a threat? Would this necessarily mean that the artist is a

criminal and that what they have created is a crime?

Street Art … A Public-Order Crime

Public-Order Crime is defined by as crime which involves

acts that interfere with the operations of society and the ability

of people to function efficiently (Siegel, 2006), simply meaning

it is behavior that has been labeled criminal because it is con-

trary to shared norms, social values, and customs. This type of

crime includes consensual crime, victimless vice, and victim-

less crime. It asserts the need to use the law to maintain order

both in the legal and moral sense. Yet, in the modern society

the moral standards, have a tendency to change over time with

every new revelation whether in the area of science, technique

or even fashion—modern society’s moral standards evolve very

fast. So is it not true to think that what may now be seen as one

thing may very well be perceived very differently in the near

future? Downloading free music from the internet was not al-

ways considered a crime; it is still not a defined crime with

consequences in some countries—yet, there are measures that

are being taken in order to make it illegal, on the grounds that it

is in fact a kind of theft. In 1916 Margaret Sanger, who founded

the first birth control clinic in New York City US, was accused

of distributing obscene material and violating public morals –

yet now, since the information about birth control is no longer

considered obscene in the US, if one were to open such a clinic

there, they would not be considered violating any public morals.

On the contrary, they would be considered doing a positive ser-

vice to young women who are not mentally, emotionally and/or

financially ready to have a baby. Even if one were not to be-

lieve in the theory of evolution, they could appreciate the fact

that change is a natural part of existence and moral values are

subject to change just as much as anything and everything else.

Then, is it wrong to presume that, just as there is difference

between what was considered a crime in the past and what is

considered a crime now, there will be a difference between

what is considered a crime now and what will be considered a

crime in the future?

Despite what they say graffiti is not the lowest form of art.

Although you might have to creep about at night and lie to

your mom it’s actually one of the more honest art forms

available. There’s no elitism or hype, it exhibits on the

best walls a town has to offer and nobody is put off the

price of admission. A wall has always been the best place

to publish your work. The people who run our cities don’t

understand it (street art) because they think nothing has

the right to exist unless it makes a profit, which makes

their opinion worthless.

Bansky (Bansky, 2005)

Explaining Street Art Using Criminological

Theory

Even though street art may not fit into any one crime defini-

tion, it may be possible to examine it from a criminological

point of view using the predefined and widely accepted Crimi-

nological and Deviance Theories such as: Differential Associa-

tion, Labeling, Neutralization, Rational Choice, Social Control,

Social Disorganization, Social Learning, Strain, Subcultural

and Criminal Triad Theory.

Street Art vs. Differential Association

Differential Association Theory (Sutherland, 1974) is a the-

ory proposing that through interaction with others, individuals

learn the attitudes, techniques, motives and values for criminal

behavior. It focuses on the how’s, but does not concern itself

with the reasons behind the why’s. Through interaction with

other street artists or street art enthusiasts, individuals learn the

attitudes, techniques, motives and values for street art too. Yet

in order to understand and examine street art and its artist better,

understanding the answer to the why’s would be essentially

more important than understanding the answers to the how’s.

Street Art vs. Labeling Theory

French sociologist Durkheim states that crime is not so much

a violation of a penal code as it is an act that outrages society

and he was the first to suggest that deviant labeling satisfies

that function and satisfies society’s need to control the behavior.

Labeling Theory holds hypothesizes that the labels applied to

individuals influence their behavior, particularly the application

of negative or stigmatizing labels promote deviant behavior, be-

coming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most street artists tend to

choose anonymity and use names other than their own real na-

mes. Consequently the label does not have as much gravity as it

would and the gravity it does have may not be perceived as

expected, at least not by the artists themselves. “Vandal” may

be a negative label, but since most street artists take pride in be-

ing seen as deviant from norms—as artists, the label’s deterrent

quality may turn into a motivational one. Just as they do not

want to live in urban spaces full of the same and boring struc-

tures, neither do they want to be another brick in the wall—sa-

me as everyone else.

Z. ALPASLAN

Street Art vs. Neutralization Theory

The Neutralization Theory explains how deviants justify their

deviant behaviors by providing alternative definitions of their

actions and by providing explanations, to themselves and others,

for the lack of guilt for actions in particular situations. Amongst

the 5 types of neutralization, Denial of Responsibility (the de-

viant believes s/he was helplessly propelled into the deviance,

and that under the same circumstances, any other person would

resort to similar actions) could be the only type that does not

seem fitting to street artists. Street artist may be in Denial of

Injury (the deviant believes that the action caused no harm to

other individuals or to the society, and thus the deviance is not

morally wrong.), Denial of The Victim (the deviant believes

that individuals on the receiving end of the deviance were de-

serving of the results due to the victim’s lack of virtue or mor-

als), Condemnation of The Condemners (the deviant believes

enforcement figures or victims have the tendency to be equally

deviant or otherwise corrupt, and as a result, are hypocrites to

stand against) or Appeal to Higher Loyalties (the deviant be-

lieves that there are loyalties and values that go beyond the con-

fines of the law; morality, friendships, income, or traditions may

be more important to the deviant than legal boundaries). Whe-

ther or not they are right about these arguments are some of the

core reasons behind street arts legality polemic.

Street Art vs. Rational Choice Theory

The Rational Choice Theory adopts an idea that man is a rea-

soning actor who weighs means and ends, costs and benefits,

and makes a rational choice. The street artist does weight the

means and ends, they pay for it financially, physically and emo-

tionally, expecting little if any benefits (due to choosing anony-

mity) and make a rational choice to proceed. Routine Activity

Theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979) is a sub-field of rational choice

theory in criminology and proposes that crime does not need

hardened offenders, super-predators, convicted felons or wicked

people, it is normal and depends on the opportunities available.

Simply put, if there is an available and suitable target, moti-

vated offender and no authority figure to prevent the crime

from happening—it will happen. Consequently, the three ele-

ments required for creating street art are the same.

Street Art vs. Social Control Theory

Social Control Theory proposes that exploiting the process of

socialization and social learning builds self-control and reduces

the inclination to indulge in behavior recognized as antisocial.

Even though this theory may be very much true for the majority,

an artist is not quite part of the majority. If anything, an artist is

someone who has a slightly different and/or more accurate per-

ception of the world surrounding us, their feelings and/or ideas,

and who is not afraid to share this perception with the rest of

humanity. This could explain why street artists consistently car-

ry on indulging in behavior recognized as antisocial.

Street Art vs. Social Disorganization Theory

The Social Disorganization Theory links high crime rates to

neighborhood ecological characteristics and this, in the sense

that it would link high street art rates to neighborhood ecologi-

cal characteristics, would make sense in understanding street art

better. It would be much more probable for youths from certain

neighborhoods to be participants in a subculture in which street

art was, even if not approved per say still, acceptable and that

understanding was acquired in a social and cultural setting

through a process of interaction.

Street Art vs. Social Learning Theory

Social Learning Theory explains deviancy by combining va-

riables which encouraged delinquency with variables that dis-

couraged delinquency (Burgess & Akers, 1966). Simply put,

according to this theory two qualities shape behavior: punish-

ment and reinforcement. Since social learning theory is a re-

vised version of Sutherland’s social disorganization theory, by

including the idea of reinforcement and applying the principles

of operant psychology (Pfohl, 1994), it is natural to find that it

could help in understanding street art better just as well.

Street Art vs. Strain Theory

Strain Theory states that social structures within society may

encourage citizens to commit crime. The gap between expecta-

tions and actual achievements come from personal goals and

some of those goals will never be realized because of unavoid-

able circumstances including both inherent weaknesses and op-

portunities blocked by others. The difference between the view

of what a person believes the outcome should be and what ac-

tually results increases personal disappointment and frustration.

Taking this into consideration, it may be thought; social struc-

tures within society may encourage citizens to take part in street

art, obviously not for material acquisition, but maybe for social

satisfaction. For example: An educated and socially aware per-

son may have an opinion they strongly believe in and they may

want to share it, yet not have the necessary tools to do so due to

circumstances outside of themselves. The disappointment and

frustration created by this may be the most logical explanation

to the existence and necessity of street art in today’s modern

societies. In a way, alternative to the belief that street art is

provocative, it may even be the relief valve.

Street Art vs. Su bcu lt ur al Theory

The Subcultural Theory is a set of theories arguing that cer-

tain groups or subcultures in society have values and attitudes

that are conducive to crime and violence. While street artist

could very well be a certain group or subculture in society with

values and attitudes that are different than the widely accepted

social norms, this would not mean that their values and attitu-

des are conducive to crime and violence. If anything, they cho-

se to be non-violent and express their ideas and feelings using

creative and artistic outlets. This theory may stay on the how

side more than the why side concerning street art and artists.

Street Art vs. Criminal Triad Theory

Criminal Triad Theory (Harmening, 2010) is a relatively new

theory of criminality that looks at the interplay of three psy-

chosocial developmental processes (attachment, moral devel-

opment, and identity-formation) in the development of a per-

son’s internal deterrence system during adolescence. Taking into

account that street artists are as varied as their motivations and

objectives, it would be a premature attempt to try and examine

street art from this point of view without a generalized street

artist psyche model—which may be impossible to achieve at

this point in time.

Z. ALPASLAN

KÜF Project: An Example from Turkey

Sarcastic and ironical humor, as way of light hearted criti-

cism of social and/or political issues, is a very deep rooted part

of Turkish culture. These roots rest on a long tradition of “Orta

Oyunu”, the shadow play also known as “Karagoz & Hacivat”,

and the caricature culture which have all been part of the soci-

ety for a long time. It may be argued that street art is now on its

way to gradually become accepted as one of them, but with a

modern twist.

A group from Ankara (Turkey) KÜF Project1, which first got

public recondition for changing the road sign leading to G. O.

Pasa (a high class district in Ankara, capital of Turkey) into

“Tosun Pasa”2 (a Turkish comedy movie title and it’s lead

male’s name) about two years ago, used street art in a humor-

ous way. Soon after, they transformed Cinnah Caddesi (the

main avenue of the capital) into a globally popular Pac-Man

themed creation3. Just as they were about to “strike” again, the

“Mavi Marmara” incident took place and both political and

social tensions ran high both in the country and the region4. The

group canceled their ready plans and spontaneously came up

with another, one they deemed more appropriate to how they

felt and thought the people would need. In a limited amount of

time, they transformed road signs into Peace Signs using stick-

ers5. After this incident, they continued the light hearted humor

about everything and anything they saw fit including the news

of the National football team not qualifying into the World

Cup6. As their fame grew so did there sphere of influence and

“Sigara!”7 was their next work. In February 2011, they became

famous throughout the country overnight with “BUYUKSEHIR

KUCUK 1 TL”8. They had installed a urinal at the entrance of a

major underpass of Ankara, over what they saw as the ugly tiles

that turned the countries capital into a giant bathroom. At this

point, they had tapped into something much more than just light

hearted sarcasm, irony and humor—they had arrived at the true

essence of street art:

“While the idea of carrying art to the streets has been a

breakthrough and been accepted by the societies all over

the world, this has not been the case in Turkey. What

people see when they go out where we live is just build-

ings, pavements, signposts, roads and street lights. Not

only does this grayness move people away from visual

intelligence, it also creates a monotonous perspective in

human mind. Within this pattern, people who use the

streets to commute only look at their steps. KÜF is to de-

stroy this monotony. It is to make people look around and

be aware. It is a riot. It is neither the representative of a

company, organization or political party, nor is apolitical.

It is a manifestation formed by the accumulation of the

ideas and skills of individuals. Its aim is not polluting the

streets, which is the setting for actions, but to color it by

revealing the dormant energy.

KÜF MANIFESTATION”9

After “BUYUKSEHIR KUCUK 1 TL”, they started “Ben

Sosyal Alkoligim Sevim!!!” (a famous line from a once popular

TV series shown for over 10 years, translating to “I Am A So-

cial Alcoholic Sevim!!!”—Sevim refers to the name of the wife

of Cemil, the character who uses the line) and displayed their

works in both Ankara and Istanbul. The last project they have

done has been done about a month ago—in Konya, one of Tur-

key’s more conservative cities. The “I [HEART] KoNYa”10

stencil was done on a wall close to the Mevlana Museum, with

a Whirling Dervish holding a spray can of paint and seemingly

writing the slogan while whirling. While the stencil, as a whole,

has the air of Middle Eastern style, it was actually structured

over a very well known and popular western logo: the “I

[HEART] NY” logo.

After almost two years, the group members still prefer to re-

main anonymous for obvious reasons—Street art is illegal in

Turkey, and thus they are considered criminals.

Are They Really Criminals?

Even if one knew nothing of KÜF Project, just by reading

the Manifestation they would, could and should get a general

idea about the who, what, why, where, when and how’s behind

what they are trying to accomplish. Using this manifestation,

and the different criminological and deviance theories gone

over in the previous chapter:

 From a neutralization theory point of view, one could state

that they are deviants who are justifying their behaviors by

providing alternative definitions of their actions and expla-

nations to themselves and others, for the lack of guilt for

actions in particular situations. Actually one could state that

just in this one paragraph they are exhibiting at least 2 out

of 5 neutralizations.

 From a rational choice theory point of view, one could state

that they have weighted the means and ends, costs and

benefits, and made a rational choice to proceed. Similarly,

when reading with a routine activity theory point of view,

one could state that they are openly sharing that if and when

they find available and suitable targets they are motivated to

take action.

 From a strain theory point of view, they are obviously dis-

appointed and frustrated by the urban space that surrounds

them and its conditions, and are announcing very clearly

their intentions of creating a change.

If it is possible to in fact speculate and/or understand KÜF

Project using some criminological and deviance theories as seen

in the example above, then maybe it is possible to place their

projects under crime types as well.

1http://www.behance.net/kufproject, http://be.net/kufproject (accessed Janu-

ary 2012).

2Making of “Tosun Pasa”, shot and edited by Küf Project.

http://vimeo. com/10951255 (accessed January 2012).

3Making of “Pac-Man”, shot and edited by Küf Project.

http://vimeo.com/- 11195391 (accessed January 2012).

4MV Mavi Marmara. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara (ac-

cessed January 2012).

5Making of “Peace Sign”, shot and edited by Küf Project.

http://vimeo. com/12246016 (accessed January 2012).

6Making of “It’s The Football”, shot and edited by Küf Project.

http://vi- meo.com/13234739 (accessed January 2012).

7“Sigara!”, shot and edited by Küf Project. http://vimeo.com/17697765.

8Making of “BUYUKSEHIR KUCUK 1 TL”, shot and edited by Küf Pro-

ect. http://vimeo.com/20280613 (accessed January 2012).

It is safe to say, none of the street art KÜF has produced can

be categorized as Organized, Corporate, State, State-Corporate

or White-Collar Crime. Actually “Sigara!”, which was more of

a stop motion film made with cigarettes, does not even count as

crime. As for the rest of the produced street art:

9KÜF Project Manifestation. http://www.behance.net/kufproject (accessed

January 2012).

10Making of “I(HEART) KoNYa”, shot and edited by Küf Project.

http://vimeo.com/33651733 (accessed January 2012).

Z. ALPASLAN

 Even though none of them were “a ruthless destruction or

spoiling of anything beautiful or venerable”, due to the fact

that all of them (except for “Sigara!”) changed the urban

space without permission—thus illegally, they could all be

considered as vandalism, a blue-color crime.

 Members of KÜF are not only anonymous; they are also

quite private about how many people they are, their ages,

sexes, educational and/or professional statuses etc, so it is

hard to say whether or not their projects can be classified as

juvenile delinquency—though taking into consideration

their interviews with news papers and project footages they

share over the internet, it does seem that even if not all of

them, at least most of them may be over the legal age of 18.

 Except for “BUYUKSEHIR KUCUK 1 TL” none of the

produced street art can count as political crime. “BUYUK-

SEHIR KUCUK 1 TL”, which was an obvious and direct

political dissent, was politically-motivated, yet it was not a

threat to the State or political regime, it was a critique of the

metropolitan mayor and his urban design policies.

 “Tosun Pasa” and “It’s The Football" both included minor

changes being made to traffic signs, which could, in a sense,

involve an act that interferes with the operations of society

and the ability of people to function efficiently, making

them public-order crimes. But in all honesty, unless the so-

ciety operating or the people functioning referred to were

strangers to this specific urban space (Ankara), it would be

very hard for them to lose efficiency due to these minor in-

terferences.

Street art may not be legal, but it seems as though neither is

it illegal. If it is not illegal, than there is no crime, meaning

there is no criminal in this example.

Conclusion

Presuming that street art could be a form of crime which

could cause “harm”, while the street artist would be a type of

criminal, who would be an “offender” and there would be “vic-

tim”s to these offences, it should have been possible to define it

under a type of crime. It was obvious that street art could not be

categorized as Organized, Corporate, State, State-Corporate or

White-Collar Crimes, yet it was possible to squeeze it into fit-

ting Blue-Collar, Political, Public-Order Crimes and/or Juvenile

Delinquency. It seems as though there is just too much subject-

tivity concerning what Vandalism is and/or what it means;

where the line is drawn between what is ordinary political dis-

sent shared and what is a threat to the State and/or the current

regime; what interferes with the operations of society and the

ability of people to function efficiently; even the exact age of

most street artists.

After trying to establish which type of crime street art would

fit properly in and failing, an attempt was made in examining

street art using a criminological point of view, with crimino-

logical and deviance theories in order to understand and explain

it better. This resulted with noting that while some theories su-

ch as the labeling and social control theories assumptions and

the street art experience were not consistent (even opposite at

times), some theories assumptions and the street art experience

was consistent. Amongst those consistent, there were theories

that are better at gathering information on the how’s behind

what is happening and would not do much in helping under-

stand the reasons behind what is happening such as the differ-

ential association and subcultural theory; while there were theo-

ies that could in fact be very helpful in understanding the why’s

behind what is happening such as especially the strain and neu-

tralization theories.

After going over an example, the KÜF Project from Ankara

Turkey with the deductions made in previous chapters, this

paper concludes that even though street art may be considered

illegal in almost everywhere in the world with only a few cir-

cumstantial exceptions, and street artists are viewed as crimi-

nals; the fact that street art cannot be classified properly in any

of the predefined crime categories raises the question whether it

actually is a real crime. Hence, this paper concludes that neither

street art is a crime, nor is the street artist a criminal—as is

stated in their names, while the former is a form of art, the latter

is an artist.

REFERENCES

Armstrong, J. (2005). The contested gallery: Street art, ethnography and

the search for urban understandings. AmeriQuests, 2.

Austin, J. (2001). Taking the train. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bansky (2005). Wall and piece. London: Random House.

Burgess, R., & Akers, R. (1966) A differential association-reinforce-

ment theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14, 128-147.

doi:10.1525/sp.1966.14.2.03a00020

Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: a

routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-

608. doi:/10.2307/2094589

De Haan, W. (1990). The politics of redress: Crime, punishment and

penal abolition. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Dickson, M. (2008). The making of space, race and place. Critique of

Anthropology, 28, 27-45.

Dindas, T. (2009). Street soul graffiti from Turkey. Martı Matbaacılık

Sanatları.

Ferrell, J. (1996). Crimes of style: Urban graffiti and the politics of cri-

minality. New York: Garland.

Harmening, W. (2010). The criminal triad: Psychosocial development

of the criminal personality type. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.

HG Legal Directories. (2012). White collar crime. URL (last checked

January 2012). http://www.hg.org/white-collar-crime.html

Hundertmark, C. (2003). The art of rebellion—World of street art.

Corte Madera, CA: Ginko Press Inc.

Lewisohn, C. (2008). Street art: The graffiti revolution. London: Tate

Museum.

Niccolai, J. (2001). IBM’s graffiti ads run afoul of city officials. URL

(last checked January 2012).

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/04/19/ibm.guerilla.idg/

Oxford English Dictionary. (2008). Oxford University Press. URL (last

checked January 2012). http://www.oed.com/

Pfohl, S. J. (1994). Images of deviance and social control: A sociologi-

cal history. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Phillips, S. A. (1999). Wallbanin, graffiti and gangs in L.A. Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press.

Siegel, L. J. (2006). Criminology: Theories, patterns, & typologies (9th

ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2011). Juvenile delinquency: The core

(4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co Inc.

Sutherland, E. H. (1974.) Criminology (9th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippin-

cott.

Times, New York (1971) “Taki 183” spawns pen pals. New York City.

URL (last checked January 2012).

http://www.ni9e.com/blog_images/taki_183.pdf

Uleshka. (2007). A1one: 1st generation Graffiti in Iran. PingMag, 19.

URL (last checked January 2012).

http://pingmag.jp/2007/01/19/a1one-1st-generation-graffiti-in-iran/

Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1984). Broken windows: The police

and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic Online. URL (last checked

January 2012).

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/BrokenWindowTheory.pdf/$FILE/Br

okenWindowTheory.pdf

上一篇:“You Know Who the Sluts Are” 下一篇:Rape and HIV as Methods of Wag

我要分享到：

职称论文发表交流平台！

Is Street Art a Crime? An Attempt at Examining Street Art Using Criminology

最新文章NEWS

推荐期刊Tui Jian

热点文章HOT