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.
In paragraph 4, the writer states,
“Plenty of graffiti is just vandalism, pure and simple.” He most likely makes
this statement in order to
And enlightened aspect of the policy is its recognition that
actual change in the status of women cannot be brought about by the mere enactment
of socially progressive legislation. Accordingly, it focuses on reorienting
development programs and sensitizing administrations to address specific
situations as, for instance, the growing number of households headed by women,
which is a consequence of rural-urban migration. The proposal to create an
equal-opportunity police force and give women greater control of police
stations is an acknowledgement of the biases and callousness displayed by the
generally all-male law-enforcement authorities in case of dowery and domestic
violence. While the mere enunciation of such a policy has the salutary effect
of sensitizing the administration as a whole, it does not make the task of its
implementation any easier. This is because the changes it envisages in the
political and economic status of woman strike at the root of power structures
in society and the basis of man-woman relationship. There is also the danger
that reservation for women in public life, while necessary for their greater
visibility, could lapse into tokenism or become a tool in the hands of vote
seeking politicians. Much will depend on the dissemination of the policy and
the ability of elected representatives and government agencies to reorder their
priorities.
According to the passage,
which of the following is the basic block in the effective implementation of
the policy?
Although cynics may like to see he government’s policy for
women in terms of the party’s internal power struggles, it will nevertheless be
churlish to deny that it represents a pioneering effect aimed at bringing about
sweeping social reforms. In its language, scope and strategies, the policy documents
displays a degree of understanding of women’s needs that is uncommon in
government pronouncements. This is due in large part to the participatory
process that marked its formulation, seeking the active involvement right from
the start of women’s groups, academic institutions and non-government
organizations with grass roots experience. The result is not just a lofty
declaration of principles but a blueprint for a practical program of action.
The policy delineates a series of concrete measures to accord women a
decision-making role in the political domain and greater control over their
economic status. Of especially far-reaching impart are the devolution of
control of economic infrastructure to women, notably at the gram panchayat
level, and the amendment proposed in the Act of 1956 to give women comparcenary
rights.
And enlightened aspect of the policy is its recognition that
actual change in the status of women cannot be brought about by the mere enactment
of socially progressive legislation. Accordingly, it focuses on reorienting
development programs and sensitizing administrations to address specific
situations as, for instance, the growing number of households headed by women,
which is a consequence of rural-urban migration. The proposal to create an
equal-opportunity police force and give women greater control of police
stations is an acknowledgement of the biases and callousness displayed by the
generally all-male law-enforcement authorities in case of dowery and domestic
violence. While the mere enunciation of such a policy has the salutary effect
of sensitizing the administration as a whole, it does not make the task of its
implementation any easier. This is because the changes it envisages in the
political and economic status of woman strike at the root of power structures
in society and the basis of man-woman relationship. There is also the danger
that reservation for women in public life, while necessary for their greater
visibility, could lapse into tokenism or become a tool in the hands of vote
seeking politicians. Much will depend on the dissemination of the policy and
the ability of elected representatives and government agencies to reorder their
priorities.
Which of the following
words is most nearly the same in meaning as the word ‘enunciation’ as used in
the passage?
