One of the debaters, Heather Mac Donald, believes that graffiti is always vandalism. She says "there is nothing "progressive" about allowing public amenities to be defaced by graffiti." Also, when a public area desecrated by graffiti tagging, she claims that it's evidence that criminals are involved and reside within that area.
I believe that her statement, graffiti is always vandalism, is a very bold one because she forgot some important things. Some areas are created specifically for artists to showcase their amazing artwork. Also, it is not vandalism if the person is granted permission by the owner of the private property. However, it is true that most cases of graffiti tagging, it is vandalism, but it always isn't.
Graffiti is generally seen as vandalism because it's mostly truthful. Although, on certain terms, graffiti can be labeled only as art, not vandalism and damage to private property. I can see why Mac Donald believes that all graffiti is vandalism, but she is wrong and she is somewhat ignorant in this topic. I honestly enjoy looking at graffiti because the style is appealing to me. However, it isn't right to violate someone's personal property. What is your opinion on this subject? This one is rather interesting and I am interested what you guys have to say.
-Lyle Cuevas
I agree with where you stand on this subject, that graffiti isn't always vandalism. However, I believe there are better times and places that graffiti artists can express their passion. For example if an abandoned house was tagged rather than a monument, people wouldn't care for it because it's doing no harm and isn't disrespectful. I just believe that these artists should just be more considerate of people's property and express their ideas in a respectful manner. Don't get me wrong graffiti art is amazing and seeing that you're an artist yourself I can see why this debate intrigued you so much :).
ReplyDeleteYes, I have the same point as you do. People cannot simply vandalize someone else's private property because they want to express themselves. You make a good point that tagging a place like an abandoned house is fine because there's no downside or negative aspect to it. I'm glad you knew why this debate really caught my attention. Also, I'm happy that you have the same point as I do. People have to be more considerate of tagging because it isn't their property or they aren't allowed to do so. However, people like Mac Donald need to realize that graffiti isn't vandalism on specific terms. Thanks for commenting Phillip!
DeleteHi Lyle, I'd like to add on to what you said about graffiti having opposing views and also people being able to express themselves with graffiti.
ReplyDeleteI personally think both graffiti and vandalization can be revealed in different shapes and forms. Whether we like it or not, graffiti is almost everywhere and it's not always shown in the way of vandalism. Just because it comes from a spray can and not a brush, doesn't mean it's vandalism. A different act of vandalism could be a group of kids trashing their school’s public bathroom. The true definition of vandalism is the act of damage or destruction to public or private property.
Graffiti is a way of an artist showing their art and it falls under the category of street art as well. It all started as a competition of who could make the best art. To the people that started this movement to the people that do it to this day, this is their way of expressing art and considering there’s no specific size canvas in front of them, that itself could bring so much inspiration to the artist.
I'd like to discuss Heather Mac Donald's statement about the correlation between graffiti and crime. In an article called "Graffiti Triggers Crime and Littering" from livescience.com, Jeanna Bryner, the author, explains the broken-window theory. She says "The theory suggests that signs of disorder, such as broken windows, graffiti and litter, can open the door to individuals breaking other social norms and rules." I'd agree with the theory because it'd be easy for an individual to think that if someone can get away with this crime than so can I with another crime. Because graffiti is seen as negative, it generates negativity. That being said, we should change graffiti's reputation.
ReplyDeleteGraffiti is generally regarded as an unlawful act that many politicians want to terminate, but I think they're approaching this "problem" all wrong. If we start recognizing graffiti as street art as oppose to vandalism and criminalization, we could make a real change. We could designate certain areas to artist so that they can preview their art to the world. Because we'd respect them as an artist, they'd respect the rules and begin to legally graffiti.
This isn't to say that 100% of illegal graffiti would come to a halt; however, it would significantly become better. Graffiti gives the artist complete creative freedom and an audience to view their art. Let's encourage these young artist to create instead of oppressing them.