A Rhetorical Reading Response: “Graffiti is a Beautiful 'Crime'” Linda Ngo, author of the opinion piece “Graffiti is a Beautiful 'Crime'” (2017), argues that graffiti should be legalized on grounds that it is an artistic expression of free speech. Ngo uses many comparisons between graffiti, which she claims is harmless, to many legal activities that cause people harm. Her purpose in writing this paper is to establish a legal form of graffiti to protect graffiti artists from legal action. Ngo's target audience for this paper is peers who may have different views on graffiti and its purpose. This paper contained many flawed arguments that frustrated me. The question “How could beautiful quotes and images destroy boring plain walls?” (Ngo 198) has a simple …show more content…
If the person wants the graffiti on their building, it is not vandalism and is already legal. Ngo also compares alcohol and tobacco use to graffiti. This is a weak argument because a person chooses to consume the substances and suffer their own personal consequences. A graffiti artist chooses another person's property and inflicts damage to it. Freedom of speech is a protected right we have as Americans, but it does not and should not extend to protect vandalism. Linda Ngo creates her arguments primarily from two methods. Her first two arguments are made in the form of syllogism. For example, Ngo states “Freedom of speech and expression is a natural right that we assimilated when we were born” (196), and “This right gives people the opportunity to speak their mind whether it’s directly using your mouth or using indirect methods through poetry, music, and visual arts” (196). Since graffiti would be a visual art, the argument is; if freedom of speech legally protects art, and graffiti is art, then graffiti should be legally protected. Another example of this is when she defines vandalism as “Action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to
Graffiti has been used many times in history to preserve and show political and religious ideas of the past. Street artists are preserving the history that is deemed “illegal” at this time. Graffiti itself is history, and it tells stories as well as preserving cities and adding a creative aspect to everyday life. The “...first forms of scripture and storytelling … were through drawings on walls. Stories passed through generations… were preserved on rocks or walls.” (Lloyd, Alexis). Now street artists are simply doing the same, whether it’s murals, tags, or people just messing around; They are preserving the unique cultures that we have today, or trying to make a name for themselves through art, or portray a political message. 85% of graffiti is just tags. (Akbar, Airfa). People's names or words made to look interesting. People trying to preserve their name through art. And this is considered a crime. Splashing your political views on a building through a mural to some people is offensive and the fact that this is illegal is a violation of the 1st amendment. Making graffiti or street art illegal is limiting an expression of people's ideas and religion.
Graffiti has been around for more than half a decade and practiced worldwide. However there is debate between whether it is a form of art or vandalism. Graffiti artists’ debate that many do not understand the reason most graffiti artist take the risk of incarceration, fines, injuries, and in some cases death to paint a wall. A graffiti artist can have the simple desire to become recognized, or to create a piece that speaks to their audience as a form of self expression. Because graffiti is associated with gangs and acts of destruction to some many cannot see the history and importance graffiti can have on a worldwide scale. Due to the fact that graffiti is usually produced illegally, meaning it is
Most people can argue that there is a fine distinction between what is recognized as art and vandalism. The individual is often faced with uncertainty when the topic of graffiti arises. The public often portray graffiti as a destructive act towards his or her surroundings however; graffiti can also be considered a form of self-expression. Many questions can be made pertaining to the graffiti movement, but the main question is graffiti a crime or an art? The answers lie in the complex phrase of “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.
If you were to go open a dictionary and look up the definition of art, you would see that it has art as “The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination…” (“Art” 2017) and “Works produced by human creative skill and imagination.” (“Art” 2017). From these definitions, graffiti is art, yet in most cases, it’s considered vandalism because it is done without permission of the property. When graffiti is done in a designated place or with the permission of the property owner, then it can truly be considered art. But even if these circumstances are not met, if the graffiti goes beyond a simple tag, it is art.
By definition, graffiti is illegal. It is also considered vandalism because public or private property is intentionally destroyed, but in Alex Boyd’s blog “In Defense of Graffiti”, he clearly conveys his argument about how graffiti shows qualities of value and shouldn’t be criticized on impulse. Even though many people have seen graffiti as something to be condoned, punishable, and terrorizing, it is actually just another form of expression, communication, art, and point of view.
Generally most people look and take graffiti as a form of destruction and wanting to cause violence, but in the artist’s mind they want to be creative and help the people around them by making art to cheer someone up or create a sense of creativity in others. They don’t do it to go to jail or because they want to pay a fine they do it because they are open minded and creative. For instance, “A lot of attention is given to the ‘broken window’ theory, which says that signs of disorder like petty vandalism, fare jumping … and yes, graffiti, open the window to larger crimes,” Verel told The Huffington Post. “But little is paid to the ways graffiti is harnessed for good in a form that’s both constructive and authentic”(Patrick Verel). They are taking this broken windows theory too far and only saying it can cause bigger crimes. Some graffiti artists are trying to uplift the neighborhoods and the people they live around with creative art. Also not all graffiti is bad enough to want artists to commit a crime. While making this art or graffiti I don’t think that these artist are trying to harm the buildings in any way, but they should ask for permission if they aren’t allowed to be painting on these buildings. This is to let the owner of the building know that they mean no harm to the environment or their workplace. For example, “Adam Cooper, cultural strategy officer for the mayor of London, thinks
As stated by Taki, an influential graffiti artist when addressing the concern authorities held about his graffiti writing, “Why they go after the little guy? Why not campaign organizations that put stickers all over the subways at election time?” (Chronopoulos 2011, pg. 81). Though, graffiti is deemed as legitimate when it is used to generate profit, which is seen through the recent increased demand for graffiti with the purpose of beautification and gentrification. Evidently, the growing concern over graffiti in public spaces is driven by the conflict graffiti creates when obstructing advertisements, which generate increased consumption and profit. It also demonstrates the lack of tolerance the dominant class has for the promotion of dominance by the lower class. Moreover, constant “public proclamations” which urged people to see graffiti writing as a social safety issue, has certainly influenced the demand for anti-graffiti efforts and the attitudes upper and middle class whites had towards Blacks and Latinos (Chronopoulos 2011, pg. 87)
Most people think of graffiti as vandalism or the defacing of private property by wild teenagers with spray cans. I had never really thought about graffiti or art for that matter until I found myself defending something I didn’t know about because I liked what I saw on the sidewalk in Memphis, Tennessee. Now, that’s sounds crazy but I did my best to explain using simple words that I hoped they would understanding.
In “Graffiti as Career and Ideology”, Lachmann states that organizations “tried to win their members recognition as serious artists by encouraging writers to produce graffiti-style works on canvas and various other media with a view toward their sale to art collectors” (246). Rather than stopping graffiti writers, they are being encouraged to keep producing graffiti-style works to sell. While they aren’t vandalizing anymore and they are producing art on canvas, it is unexpected to further support these “criminals” like the organizations are doing. Some graffiti is even so respected and praised that it is protected. The perfect example of this is that “The stencil work and street art of British artist Banksy, possibly the most well-known contemporary graffiti writer/street artist, has gained such value as a commodity that the work on some of his walls is now protected under the aegis of urban heritage” (McAuliffe and Iveson 139). How can graffiti and its writers be so frowned upon but so many people still praise
In the summer of 2013, a graffiti artist by the name of 'Lady Pink' had police barge into her house in Queens and arrest her husband for vandalism. They took her art supplies, photo archives, and many of her prized possessions. She had to sit there, helpless, watching police take away her things. In today's world right now, expressing yourself creatively is one of the most important things you can do to help figure out who you are. A part of creative expression is art. Art makes people happy. Graffiti falls into the art category. For some people, graffiti is what they do to express themselves. Graffiti is art and shouldn't be illegal. Expressing yourself creatively shouldn't be a crime.
Is graffiti art? Yes, graffiti is art, through vandalism. By this I mean that graffiti artists are just as much artists as anyone else but their workspace is simply different than a Leonardo Da Vinci’s. Yes graffiti is unwarranted but anything can be considered art. Graffiti is art because it portrays a message and it lets voices be heard, graffiti lets youth express themselves through a unique way and it adds beauty and difference to our world.
Graffiti can be found everywhere and anywhere. It is a way for people to express themselves and be creative in a public manner. It shows how passionate and talented they can be when it comes to drawing or tagging and have it displayed as a piece of art for everyone to see. Graffiti goes way back to the ancient times and is now very well known in the modern days which makes more and more people interested and fascinated by them. It can be used in different types of ways. Many artists can either spray paint, carve, paste, or stencil them on a surface. From how we see them today they are usually images of random cartoons, big bubbly letters, vintage black and whites or inspirational quotes. Virtually anything colorful or not and big that can be easily spotted. Graffiti is more superior to be known as art than vandalism because it is a self expressing act. People need to be open minded about the images they see and look at the message behind it or else they will immediately criticize and say it is vandalizing property.
We seem to come into contact with a form art every day. It is all around us and sometimes we don’t even notice. One of those art forms is street art, better known by the name graffiti. Graffiti can be recognized for having a bad connotation associated with it, for example some people view it as offensive, vulgar, a nuisance or a form of vandalism. For some people graffiti is a way of life, a culture per se. There are many ways that culture can be defined for example culture can contain the use of symbols, it can be learned and shared, it has values and purpose. Graffiti as a culture contains all of these things and in this paper I will be looking at some comparisons and contrasts of graffiti culture in America from when it started and its evolution to mainstream artistic culture.
This negative shadow on the art form of graffiti has caused the decline of the graffiti movement. As many have predicted, “graffiti may eventually disappear” (“The Writing's on the Wall; Graffiti”). Graffiti has already begun to dwindle from what was once a flourishing art movement, to an almost disesteemed hobby. However, a soiled reputation is not the only culprit in the murder of authentic graffiti. The occupation of the current generation with technology and social media has caused many artists to focus solely on selling their work and gaining attention through social networking platforms. Another, perhaps more common, reason for the decline is the improvement of police work and punishments for those indulging in the illegal form of graffiti (“The Writing's on the Wall; Graffiti”). Because of this decline in authentic and prohibited graffiti, artists have channeled their work into new forms and established their own artistic community.
Graffiti has put a major impact on the way people look at their everyday life. It was not used so much here in the United States but was used overseas. Overseas, graffiti, or street art, was used or played as a sport, just like baseball is Americas sport. There are different laws that are put over there than what there are here. They can get away with some of the things that they paint or make over there. If we tried some of that type of work over here, we would get in trouble and possibly serve time for vandalizing someone else’s property. There are many biased outlooks on graffiti, but it should be considered art in all places because of all the time, effort, and design the artist put into their work.