I am writing in response to response
to the article “Protecting our public spaces” in issue 14, published this
spring in it, the author claims that “all graffiti is public spaces.” I would
like to point out that many people believe that graffiti is an art from that
can benefit our public spaces just as much as sculpture, fountains, or other,
more accepted art forms.
People who object to graffiti
usually do so more because of where it is, not what it is. They argue, as your
author does, that posting graffiti in public places constitutes an illegal act
of property damage. But the location of such graffiti should not prevent the
images themselves from being considered genuine art.
I would argue that graffiti is the
ultimate public art form. Spray paint is a medium unlike any other. Though
graffiti, the entire world has become a canvas. No one has to pay admission or
travel to a museum to see this kind of art. The artists usually do not receive
payment for their efforts. These works of art dotting the urban landscape are
available, free of charge, to everyone who passes by.
To be clear, I do not consider
random words or names sprayed on stop signs to be art. Plenty of graffiti is
just vandalism, pure and simple. However, there is also graffiti that is
breathtaking in its intricate detail, its realism, or its creativity. It takes
great talent to create such involved designs with spray paint.
Are these creators not artists
just because they use a can of spray paint instead of a paintbrush, or because they
cover the side of a building rather than a canvas?
To declare that all graffiti is
vandalism, and nothing more, is an overly simplistic statement that I find out
of place in such a thoughtful publication as your magazine. Furthermore,
graffiti is not going anywhere, so might as well find a way to live with it and
enjoy its benefits. One option could be to make a percentage of public space,
such as walls or benches in parks, open to graffiti artists. By doing this, the
public might feel like part owners of these works of art, rather than just the
victims of a crime.
The writer concludes this passage
by
On January 3, 1961, nine days after
Christmas, Richard Legg, John Byrnes, and Richard McKinley were killed in a
remote desert in eastern Idaho. Their deaths occurred when a nuclear reactor
exploded at a top-secret base in the National Reactor Testing Station (NRTS).
Official reports state that the explosion and subsequent reactor meltdown
resulted from the improper retraction of the control rod. When questioned about
the events that occurred there, officials were very reticent. The whole affair,
in fact, was discussed much, and seemed to disappear with time.
In order to grasp the mysterious
nature of the NRTS catastrophe, it help to know a bit about how nuclear
reactors work. After all, the generation of nuclear energy may strike many as
an esoteric process. However, given its relative simplicity, the way in which
the NRTS reactor functions is widely comprehensible. In this particular kind of
reactor, a cluster of nine-ton uranium fuel rods are positioned lengthwise
around a central control rod. The reaction begins with the slow removal of the
control ro, which starts a controlled nuclear reaction and begins to heat the
water in the reactor. This heat generates steam, which builds pressure inside
the tank. As pressure builds, the steam looks for a place to escape. The only
place this steam is able to escape is through the turbine. As it passes through
the turbine on its way out of the tank, it turns the giant fan blades and
produces energy.
On the morning of January 3, after
the machine had been shut down for the holidays, the three men arrived at the
station to restart the reactor. The control rod needed to be pulled out only
four inches to be reconnected to the automated driver. However, records
indicate that Byrnes yanked it out 23 inches, over five times the distance
necessary. In milliseconds the reactor exploded. Legg was impaled on the
ceiling; he would be discovered last. It took one week and a lead-shielded
crane to remove his body. Even in full protective gear, workers were only able
to work a minute at a time. The three men are buried in lead-lined coffins
under concrete in New York, Michigan, and Arlington Cemetery, Virginia.
The investigation took nearly two
years to complete. Did Byrnes have a dark motive? Or was it simply an accident?
Did he know how precarious the procedure was? Other operators were questioned
as to whether they knew the consequences of pulling the control rod out so far.
They responded “Of course! We often talked about what we would do if we were at
a radar station and the Russians came.
“We’d yank it out.”
Official reports are oddly
ambiguous, but what they do not explain, gossip does. Rumors had it that there
was tension between the men because Byrnes suspected the other two of being
involved with his young wife. There is little doubt than he, like the other
operators, knew exactly what would happen when he yanked the control rod.
Which of the following literary
techniques does the author use in the passage?
I hyperbole, characterized by the
use of exaggeration for effect
II foreshadowing, characterized by
the use of hints that depict future events in the narrative or story
III flashback, characterized by
the description of a scene set in a time earlier than the main story
