Graiti is Always Vandalism
Anyone who gloriies graiti needs to answer one question: If your home were tagged during the night without your consent, would you welcome the new addition to your décor or would you immediately call a painter, if not the police?
First of all, graiti is something that one celebrates, if one is juvenile enough to do so, when it shows up on someone else’s property but never on one’s own. No institution that has celebrated graiti in recent years — like the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles or the Museum of the City of New York — would allow its own premises to be defaced for even one minute.
Next, the question “When does graiti become art?” is meaningless. Graiti is always vandalism. By deinition, it is committed without permission on another person’s property, in an adolescent display of entitlement. Whether particular viewers ind any given piece of graiti artistically compelling is irrelevant. Graiti’s most salient characteristic is that it is a crime.
Furthermore, John Lindsay, the progressive New York politician who served as mayor from 1966 to 1973, declared war on graiti in 1972. He understood that graiti signaled that informal social controls and law enforcement had broken down in New York’s public spaces, making them vulnerable to even greater levels of disorder and lawbreaking. A 2008 study from the Netherlands has shown that physical disorder and vandalism have a contagious effect, conirming the “broken windows theory.”
In conclusion, there is nothing “progressive” about allowing public amenities to be defaced by graffiti; anyone who can avoid a graiti-bombed park or commercial thoroughfare will do so, since tagging shows that an area is dominated by vandals who may be involved in other crimes as well.
INFO DAN FILE LENGKAPNYA KLIK DI SINI ATAU HUB 085398507498
TERSEDIA JUGA DI CHANNEL YOU TUBE PEJUANG SKRIPSI
