Although I strongly disagree with the nature and criminal part of graffiti in neighborhoods, I do believe that it is art. I have seen the hard work and practice that goes into graffiti whether it is a full wall of pictures or simply a written message. The writer of this article was correct with his historical arguments to an extent. Graffiti has been used throughout the centuries, but to my knowledge and research it was never in contrary to the law and was for educational or cultural records. Historically, paper was not a common part of everyday life. 0We have the benefit of paper and if paint can be afforded, paper shouldn't be a bank breaker.
I strongly disagree with the writer’s argument that Picasso or Monte would be accepted in society for painting on walls or other people's houses. The law stands for a reason and for my personal possessions; I am pleased that they have been established. If a building is property of another the art aspect of graffiti has gone out the window and fails to "outweigh" any laws. I do agree that graffiti has been given a bad reputation due to the location of the majority of it. So in this case, I have to agree that no matter what it is art, but should be displayed in a different, more courteous way. I completely agree with the arguments against graffiti that include breaking of the law and a forced appearance on the neighborhood, but I think that when it comes to the art factor it should not be contested that it is art.
An Essay Concerning The Recognition of Some Forms of Graffiti As Art
George C. Stowersgstowers@students.miami.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment