Monday, September 13, 2010

Graffiti?


            Some people might say that urban art or “graffiti” is bad for the community and for people. I do not think that urban art is bad for any reason. Urban art is not necessarily destruction of property, I think of it as more of coloring or decorating the city. Most of the property being painted is not even being used. I agree that urban art should not be done on important places such as religious places, cemeteries, and so on.  In urban art, there are some rules.  Some rules are like: no tagging on churches or places of worship; no tagging cars or houses; no going over someone who is a lot better than you unless its beef; do not tag your personal property (except of course black books and such); no tagging over murals or memorials; and do not tag on schools.  The people who do not follow these rules are not considered writers, and those are the people that give urban art a bad name.

            Writers are in risk of many things. They could be arrested, jumped, robbed, or killed, but they still pursue to do what they like to do, paint. I think that is pretty determined to do what they do. Most people also say, “ Oh, what about gangs and violence in graffiti.”  In my opinion, urban art has nothing to do with gangs and violence. Gangs and violence should not even be under the category of urban art. As I said before, this is what gives urban art a bad name. For example, have you ever seen a mural with a gang sign or name on it drawn by the original writer, I don’t think so. Murals are about politics, comedy, nature, and so on, not about gangs or encouraging violence.

            Overall, urban art should not be seemed to be a bad thing for the community and for people. Of course urban art sometimes has its flaws for decisions of others, but not all urban art should be assumed to be bad. Finally, when you are on the freeway in traffic and you sight urban art, it catches your eye. It keeps you entertained, which is another reason for urban art. It is not only for the writers’ eyes, it is for everyone else to enjoy and appreciate urban art.

8 comments:

  1. Your points are clear and convincing. I have two responses.

    1. "Gangs and violence should not even be under the category of urban art." I think I know where you're headed with this--but I think it would improve your piece if you explored this idea more. Why aren't gang tags "art"? Maybe that can be a future post topic for you.

    2. I think the writing would improve if you used the words "urban art" less. I appreciate that you're trying to stress that graffiti is, in fact, art, but if you read this out loud to yourself you'll see how strange it starts to sound.

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://ivan814.blogspot.com/2010/09/responce-to-quote.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're getting some pretty decent attention, my friend. This post has gotten several people thinking.

    More about Banksy, the guy I was telling you about this morning...He did a thing in Detroit, which some museum folks tore down ("stole"?) and put in a gallery. The question is, is it still the same piece of art with the same meaning if it's not in the same urban context he made it in? Check it out and let me know what you think:

    http://www.freep.com/article/20100515/ENT05/100514077/Graffiti-artist-Banksy-leaves-mark-on-Detroit-and-ignites-firestorm

    ReplyDelete
  4. I responded here http://billylau12345.blogspot.com/2010/09/luiss-talk-about-graffiti.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. i responded
    http://thatguynameddevin.blogspot.com/2010/09/response-to-luiss-blog-about-graffiti.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. I responded here http://islandofreading.blogspot.com/2010/09/response-post.html
    Sup vato

    ReplyDelete
  7. I responded 2 this..
    http://sha2owzblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/first-off-i-would-just-like-to-say-that.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://nawaraahmed.blogspot.com/2010/09/graffitti.html

    ReplyDelete