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 this passage, the writer argues
that graffiti
The history of literature really began was the earliest of
the arts. Man danced for joy round his primitive camp fire after the defeat and
slaughter of his enemy. He yelled and shouted as he danced and gradually the
yells and shouts became coherent and caught the measure of the coherent and
caught the measure of the dance and thus the first war song was sung. As the
idea of God developed prayers were framed. The songs and prayers became
traditional and were repeated from one generation to another, each generation
adding something of its own. As man slowly grew more civilized, he was
compelled to invent some method of writing by three urgent necessities. There
were certain things that it was dangerous to forget and which, therefore, had
to be recorded. It was often necessary to communicate with person who were some
distance away and it was necessary to protect one’s property by making tools,
cattle and so on, in some distinctive manner. So man taught himself to write
and having learned to write purely for utilitarian reasons he used this new
method for preserving his war songs and his prayers. Of course, among these
ancient peoples, There were only a very few individuals who learned to write,
and only a few could read what was written.
Before man invented writing
