In essence, the art of graffiti has become a modern criterion of the urban dissatisfaction. Notably, this has been the worldly popular culture which is responsible for driving cities managers to total distraction. There are many ways in which the issue of graffiti can be approached; however, the public view on the same is a simple dialectic, a culture which upholds the rights of people against the criminals who are thought to be destroying the urban fabric. The notion that the holders of the graffiti are beyond the walls of the city and obscurely is not true as it is ever present within the young men and women in the urban centers. In the ease of 21 century, such young people have become the main targets in all political forums and debates circulating across the global. Notably, the quietness on those who conform to the culture of graffiti has allowed both the politician and the media to declare war on that individual. Often, this war has always been unfair to people who the only way they can raise their voices is through the urban fabric itself.
The notion viewed by the government and the media has transformed the whole aspect of graffiti to criminality thus creating a public cycle descent culture is collapsed into a common criminality. Various researchers indicate that the public has a different view on the anti-graffiti discourse and possess a strong application for the kind of research practiced and consumed by the people. Many believe that taking time to research the concept of graffiti is a way of taking sides with the urban rhetorical misunderstandings (Lannert, 2015). Essentially, with the prevalent war on graffiti, it is prudent people to take sides thus identifying whether they support the culture or are against the whole notion. In various instances, researchers are left to explain the wider and predictable presence of graffiti across the cities some which are found to be abusive especially on the schoolyard walls and streets. Essentially, a clear understanding of those who use the divine culture of graffiti poses a great divide between the public posture and the academic practices on the street which always falls victim of unfair criminalization.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Transgressing the limits of this practice often reveals the moral codes. Notably, the way space is always configured in the city and reproduced. In the last decade, the whole issue of graffiti has caught the eyes of the geographers as a spatial practice. The successive work of graffiti has been investigated many times since the since the work by Ley and Cybriwsky in Philadelphia. The researcher based his research on the politics of graffiti and its partialness. Nonetheless, there was no agreement on a systematic procedure by the geographers to trace the work by the research of criminology and cultural workers who always criticize the whole art of graffiti.
The notion whether graffiti is an art or vandalism roars in many peoples mind across the world. In essence, those that brand graffiti to be a crime stand purely on the fact that in most cases it is painted without permission of the relevant authority. Considering such fact of the unlawful act, they are right (Lannert, 2015). While many frame graffiti as a crime, their argument has always been based on the understanding of its connection to the aspect of crime and legal order. Various theories have been used by politicians and media commentators in justifying the criminality use of graffiti across the globe. Such theory that has famously been used is the broken window theory which outlines the community disorder in the wake of the use of graffiti. Nonetheless, the notion that graffiti and another form of urban culture perpetuate disorder and crime is a subject under contention. Various writers argue that the efforts to eradicate graffiti has seen its replacement with others rather than total removal in the society. Surprisingly enough, the change to a zero tolerance and increasing hard threats has simply failed to deter graffiti researchers and writers. Zero tolerance has become a challenge, especially on the basis that the media are seeking public fame upon the prevailing war on the art and cultural use of the famous graffiti practices. Supposedly, those e people who have often been caught raising campaigns against graffiti are always had minimal. Notably, they tend to refuse to ascertain what graffiti says, regardless whether they are beautiful, insightful, or hateful. Many people regard graffiti to be a crime by ignoring the message they carry, and the only major in their location .research suggests that the main illegality of this enterprise tend to concentrate on the account that the contemporary graffiti is yet another form of crime.
Across many cities of the world, graffiti tend to receive a similar amount of criticism especially from those who don’t understand the art behind the whole culture. Apparently, from the angle of those who don’t possess such talent always think that painting graffiti on the wall without permission is a right thing. From this thoughtful mind, the only proper way to present graffiti is to draw them into a gallery and not someone’s property. However, those that view graffiti as an art always tend to avoid what other speak about and the total alignment of graffiti’s criminality (Walker, Schuurman, 2015). Some go ahead and make their point that graffiti is art by saying that the artistic drawings normally hang in famous museums and gallery stores thus should not be viewed as a crime but a pure culture of talent and art. As a kind of recognition, various authorities have taken into consideration the aspect of art and set aside legal walls where young people can interact with writers as a way of avoiding indulgence in a more serious crime. In this way, writers are given the chance of emerging from the dark side of negative portrayal to a legit world of recognition. Nonetheless, such habit tends to materialize the tension that exists between the property crime and the public art.
In the recent years, the new form of graffiti which is presented in the urban setting tends to defy the odds of the legal places for representing the art, therefore, refusing to be contained within the proper setting as designed. Notably, the refusal to comply with the set rules of its location means that the art is aimed at disturb and defy the everyday operation through refusal to set them in a more predictable locations in the city.in this way, graffiti stands to represent the vision of those individual whose presence is not often realized in the vision of order of society. When graffiti is expressed as a mean of technology, it subverts the notion and status of dialogue, language, and dissertation within the public domain. Notably, this aspect always acts in making a more visible multi-culture (McAuliffe, Iveson, 2011). Essentially, in many instances, graffiti has been implicated in the urban political disparity and racist elements. In this thinking, the art of graffiti can be viewed as a transgressive nature in which society highlights the presence of vague public space in which most individual challenge and agree their co-existence in a condition of disagreement. Unlike the notion of graffiti as a crime and threat, such dissertations of uncertainty generate space for consideration of the disclosure and excitement embraced in graffiti as an intervention by the urban society that creates a distinctive societal experience.
In the public domain, graffiti receive mix reaction as both public and private. Many view it as a way of presentation aimed at representing the information of other writers and therefore a communication by those who only understand it. In this sense of thought, graffiti is often viewed as a private affair that is hidden from the general public who don’t understand its meaning. Another claim is that the culture and art of graffiti always seek for visibility. In this aspect, visibility is always achieved as the art is always clear to the general public despite the fact that it is not necessarily understood by all people. Apparently, the aspect of private of graffiti has polarized the belief that the culture ought to be eradicated from the public as many don’t understand what it portends. The views of those opposing the culture argue that the art is a selfish and individualism that is always claimed to be acting in favor of those who want to regain the realm of the public mainly on behalf of the community.
To many, graffiti is framed as a severe crime that impacts all corner of society. The rapid development of street culture also recognized as the global street sub-culture has been known to integrate resulting to a bigger and positive impact on the life of individuals and the large society. Notably, graffiti was designed to express the feelings and emotion of different cultures of the world. In essence, the art of graffiti has been widely used by a different class of people across the world. According to various police department across the United States, graffiti is a sign of moral and social decay. It tends to generate fear among the member of the society and its surrounding neighborhood. Cities across the world have put a lot of effort in ending the art of graffiti especially those that are intended to distract the public. This is because various cults such as terrorist take the advantage of such art to present their identity to the public. Such habit always creates fear among people of the society.
Essentially, artistic painting in the form of graffiti can sometimes damage the reputation and the overall cost of a building. Most people argue against the notion of the beauty of graffiti that it always lowers the general value of a building and sometimes makes them appear ugly (Gee, 2013). Although some painting can appear beautiful on walls of a building, it can increase the cost of scraping them off thus resulting in the additional cost by relevant organization. Additionally, according to research, United States always set aside a budget amounting to about 6.2 million for graffiti removal around the city. This means that every year extra cost is experienced by the government which could be used in other different substantive projects.
Throughout the year, the art and culture of graffiti have been a tool of expression by a various individual across the world. As the time and technology changes, there has been a transformation of the kind through talent and societal culture. The technique of presentation of this art has drastically changed to conform to the present day demand (Boluza, 2013). However, the general view and attitude towards graffiti have not changed. Many view it as a biased culture which is so divisive between those who get the message it passes through and those who don’t grasp the whole picture of its meaning. In the present days, political activist employ the art of graffiti to make various statements and also used by terrorist thus it becomes hard to define exactly who rebels and who tends to illustrate.
In conclusion, the art of graffiti contravene the power and the customs in various urban centers. It has turned out to be a rebellious space belonging to the young generation in the face of attempts by those that are powerful in imposing cultural space. Graffiti has been misused to the extent that it disrupts the natural and aesthetic fabric of the cities posing the story whose action is not to be used as a communication medium. Many types of research indicate that the culture of graffiti has a negative connotation in various societal spectrums across the world. The art also tends to undermine property ownership especially those that are private and billboards that are owned by the state. Nonetheless, the art creates fear among the youth and the society since many gangs are conforming to its use as a way of identity. Despite the various research based on creating sides and understanding the art of graffiti, there is no a clear answer as to whether graffiti is a crime or art.
References
Boluza, I. (2013). Is Graffiti Art a Crime or a Protest of the Society against Law Enforcement. Pub. Sec. Stud., 2, 69.
Gee, E. G. (2013). City Walls Can Speak: The Street Art Movement and Graffiti's Place in First Amendment Jurisprudence. Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports LJ, 20, 209.
Lannert, C. (2015). The Perpetuation of Graffiti Art Subculture. Butler Journal of Undergraduate Research, 1(1), 5.
McAuliffe, C., & Iveson, K. (2011). Art and crime (and other things besides…): Conceptualizing graffiti in the city. Geography Compass, 5(3), 128-143.
Walker, B. B., & Schuurman, N. (2015). The pen or the sword: a situated spatial analysis of graffiti and violent injury in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Professional Geographer, 67(4), 608-619.
