Sunday, March 11, 2007
New York's Response to Graffiti
Graffiti, according to dictionary.com is“1) a drawing or inscription made on a wall or other surface, usually so as to be seen by the public. 2) A rude decoration inscribed on rocks or walls.” After looking at the definition of Graffiti, it has become very clear that it is a form of art, which may be considered “rude.” So, has the backlash from New York City train systems helped or hurt the growth of Graffiti? Some people feel that Graffiti is a way to become ‘famous’ in their own community, and a way that people can express themselves artistically. It is also considered an art form that is a non-violent outlet for teenagers and adults that live in high crime areas. Although many lovers of the Hip-Hop culture feel this way, the train systems of New York feel that Graffiti is not an art, and that it is vandalism to public property. New York has spent millions of dollars painting over streetcars, walls, and subways to try and become Graffiti free. They have also tried to arrest the Graffiti writers, because the creators of Graffiti were members of street gangs who were trying to mark their territory. Therefore, although Graffiti has become popular due to its artist's love, the negative reaction from the government and train systems to try to put an end to it, has definitely hurt Graffiti's growth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I def agree with NY's reaction being a part of the downfall of graf. I personally believe that NY could have spent all that money helping the people and the homeless people that were struggling during that time. Instead they used millions of dollars finding graf writers, cleaning up walls, and cleaning up the trains. No one knows what would have happened if they never cleaned walls or trains; however, somthing tells me that graf may have been much more popular and more present all around America.
I agree with your article and they way you put the definition of graffiti in your article. I agree with the definition of Graffiti. It is a form of art. New York as poor as it was didn’t have to spend all their money on cleaning theses trains. If I was a train rider and I had to ride the train everyday for twice a day. I would view the graffiti as an escape from the regular norm. Not having to ride the same boring train everyday. It would be something to look. It would bring the boring town to life if they didn’t clean all the trains. I think it was a waste of money for New York.
I really like how you put forth the effort and looked up the definition of grafitti. This is beause I feel that the media represented grafitti in a terrible light in the beginning. By understanding that art can be seen in such an expression, on the dictionary, people can see grafitti for what it really is.
Post a Comment