Art or vandalism?

I went to visit some friends in Berkshire this weekend. To get there, I took a train. While I was waiting for my train in Platform 5, a train heading to Alton pulled up at Platform 4, which is across Platform 5. A 'painting' on the body of the Alton train captured my attention. See picture. Then, an interesting question popped in my head. Is the 'painting' art or vandalism? Or is it a combination of both? A bit of art and a bit of vandalism?

It is art, I think, because it requires an artistic mind to visually sketch the outline before he or she can skilfully spray-paint on the train. Also, it is an art because it requires a great control of a spray can in order to execute such artwork. On the other hand, it is vandalism because the ‘painting’ was executed on someone else’s property i.e. the train. The ‘artist’, unquestionably, has not sought permission from the owner of the train before executing his or her artwork.


I am not suggesting that painting someone else's property with graffiti without the owner's consent is a good thing. If I had a car, I would not want my car to be 'spray-painted' without my consent and knowledge. But, we cannot deny that graffiti is an art form in its own right. Graffiti, in a way, creates a 'zest' to the usually boring-looking South West trains.


I was looking for some information about graffiti online. Wikipedia claims that graffiti is a form of pop culture existence which is often related to underground hip-hop and b-boying. Wikipedia also claims that graffiti is often used as a gang symbol to mark territory or to serve as an indicator or 'tag' for gang-related activity. How fascinating is that? Is graffiti art or vandalism? I am sure the debate will continue for a while. What is your take?