Vandals or Visionaries? The Ethical Criticism of Street Art - Response

Mary Beth Willard argues that neither the ethicist nor the autonomist model embodies the moral landscape of street art, and I agree. These models overlook the complexity and meaning of street art and the messages the artist is trying to convey to their community. They completely ignore the idea of race, class, society, and culture. Quickly defining street art as vandalism is ignoring the challenges the artist faced, the risks they endure to put a message out there in a public space that maybe their own community. These artworks to the streets and its culture, they are unapologetic and do not require legality. Street art has no critics, it is not apart of the mainstream art world, it's made and meant to stay in the street for everyday people at no cost. It speaks louder than words many times and deserves to not be seen through an ethicist or autonomist model because they have strict definitions of what art is and what art isn't but I believe art is subjective, and anyone can make art about whatever they want and perceive art however they want. Street art challenges the norms of how we as a public interact with public spaces, and basing it off models of belief systems not everyone knows about is shallow, and ignorant to the overall message. This form of art continues to be controversial but these street artists are changing the game and they are in my eyes considered visionaries and vandals. It is not fair that someone outside the community gets to decide if it's art. They are artists who have a right to create their works on public spaces that have been apart of their communities and will speak to their people, damaging or not, there is always a message/meaning.