Discourse: Critique And Evaluation Answers Assessment Answer

The act of making nuisances on someone else’s property is not a good thing. There are also certain exceptions, such as- if prior permission has been taken by the owner of the building, then graffiti is not a bad thing. It is agreed that graffiti encourages talent and encourages art in the society (Watzlawik, 2014). This is also a source of livelihood for some people. If there is a common message that needs to be communicated to a large audience, then graffiti is the best medium to do so (Watzlawik, 2014). It can also be used as a medium for social development. There are street artists all over the world who sponsor art centers in economically backward neighborhoods.

The problem arises when it is completely unauthorized. When it destroys the buildings, then it is equivalent to a crime. The owners of the properties have the right to maintain a clean and nice appearance of their buildings (Ashurst, 2016). The graffiti gives the building a dirty appearance (Ashurst, 2016). There are visually unpleasant art forms that are sometimes offensive to specific sections of the society. When they are displayed on the walls, it creates a bad atmosphere in the localities. The costs of repairs of the buildings are also high, which creates a negative image of graffiti. It also reduces the resale value of the buildings.

There are three disagreements to the statement of the author. He  has stated that graffiti is acceptable all over the world, but there is considerable doubt regarding the actual number of supporters of graffiti. People are yet to accept graffiti. This is because of the existing tarnished image of the same. There is a pre-conceived notion that graffiti is equivalent to vandalism and hence it is bad (Frabetti, 2015). It creates a bad effect on the environment and hence it cannot be accepted by the people. Secondly, the author states that vandalism is an art, which is absolutely not true. A destruction to the public property cannot be an art. The graffiti can be considered as an art form, however, the medium of art delivery, is not quite favorable. The vandalism can be equated with violence, which is not acceptable by the modern society. Thirdly, the author  argues that a suitable legislation is required to support graffiti; however, the law cannot give permission to trespass. In fact, the law considers graffiti as a serious offense, which is often penalized (Davies, 2012).

Conclusion

It is true that art needs open expression to prove its true worth. The author is correct in stating that the people are changing their perception towards graffiti. The graffiti is beneficial in several ways, however, it is considered as a ruthless act, by a major section of people. The invasion of one’s privacy without his/her consent cannot be a nice idea. It degrades the modern day environment. The art can be expressed in other forms too. It is not mandatory to express art through graffiti. This is the cause why there are not sufficient laws protecting the street artists. 

References

Ashurst, N. (2016). Cleaning Historic Buildings: V. 1: Substrates, Soiling and Investigation. Routledge.

Davies, J. (2012). Art Crimes: Theoretical Perspectives on Copyright Protection for Illegally-Created Graffiti Art. Me. L. Rev., 65, 27.

Frabetti, A. C. (2015). Youth graffiti vandalism: liminal perspectives in the light of masculinity, social contract theory and transformative process.

Watzlawik, M. (2014). The “art” of identity development—Graffiti painters moving through time and space. Culture & Psychology, 20(3), 404-415.