Graffiti - Art or Crime in the US - Research Paper Example

 Graffiti Introduction In this essay, I intend to investigate and uncover the application of graffiti to Arts. My primary aim is to examine the conflict between artistic expression and crime. Graffiti is currently accepted to be the use of images and letters to publicly viewable surfaces. However, the use of graffiti is prone to acts of vandalism (Baird & Taylor, 2011). For example, where graffiti painting is executed without the consent of the properties owners. Therefore, it is inevitable to assume this contemporary issue. Subsequently, I have developed a strong urge and put to bare the areas of conflicts arising from the graffiti artistic expression and the crime. Furthermore, graffiti offenders can be sued in a Court of law and accordingly charged in the United States. Various styles of graffiti possess different names. For instance, the ‘tag’ becomes that mostly known graffiti writing style. The ‘tag’ either takes the form of a person’s or a gang of signature incorporating few letters. The tags are studied for an adequate period and as they are easily recognized and the practice continues after then when they can be sprayed accurately but faster. Moreover, advanced stylized graffiti calls for the utilization of a number of paint colors consuming much time in planning and completion. On many occasion, graffiti-attached criminals are multiple who engage in such intricate acts of vandalism. Therefore, the study of graffiti is important to curb the loss of huge money spent in case of removal of these paints if validated as acts of vandalism. Such huge of monetary costs not only arise from the acquisition of chemical but rather stretches to manpower and time costs. Some of the chief areas that have drawn huge monetary costs when removing offending graffiti include public transport and downtime of trains. Moreover, vandalism attracts more social cost or externality arising from these artistic acts. As William and Kelling’s ‘broken window’ (1982) points that whenever a window in a building is broken and left-unreversed, other windows would suffer the same fate. Such a conclusion arises from the community perception that there is the lack of some degree of care within their locality. Accordingly people will be aversive to such locations attached to some form of danger intensifying the disorderly behavior. There is, therefore, the US vandalism agency needs to speed up their reactions to such unfortunates acts of vandalism. Such actions should extend to the removal or painting over the identified graffiti to break the possibility of the intensified disorderly conducts thus breaking such cycles (West-Pavlov, 2005). Finally, in this essay will showcase how significance it is to study the conflict between graffiti artistic and crime in the United States. Review of the Literature In this section, I will a review the legality of the graffiti including the gang graffiti that has attracted attention of many researchers. The study of gang graffiti amongst the anthropologist is on the rise in the recent past. Such an intensified research results from the increased cases of vandalism with such indicators as gang violence, gang warfare and the underlying political threats of gang politics to the great American political system. Gang Graffiti Susan Phillips (1999) studied a number of gang inhabited cities such as CA and Loss Angels disturbed by the systematic, political, as well as symbolic representation and construction of a range of graffiti gangs. Susan identified that gang members find a socially recognized identity via the gang membership despite being in contradiction to the social norms and popular culture. Further, she uncovered that these gangs rely on the larger context from which they originate. Therefore, the author unearths that the values, culture and politics of such gangs is a structural and systematic response to depraved social conditions particularly the lack of representation within the greater American culture. The gang’s activities are facilitated by social acceptance, lack of social recognition as well as constraints on economic resources. The gangs thus aim at thwarting the exclusive principle of the contemporary society. Gangs, therefore, oppose the system in total disregard to an overtly political manner. The gangs thus are symbolic of a resistance to the American social norm thus a new culture that establishes and incorporates its individual symbolic system into the larger American culture. However, graffiti initially rejected such a symbol of resistance. Thus, gangs utilized graffiti in conjunction with societal members towards their anonymous opposition of the social system upon which they were disliked. Graffiti Legality Many researchers have investigated legality of graffiti. Particularly, studies have focused on the issues circumventing the placement and representation of graffiti art. Such issues have however remained complex and controversial. The illustration and definition of graffiti under the law reveals a number of illegalities with respect to a number of forms of graffiti. The laws are, however, subjective in nature with respect to the regulation of expression and people choices. Dennant study revealed two different subcultures of artists who are split in the middle due to fragmentation of graffiti culture with respect to the legality of the graffiti. There are thus ‘hardcore’ graffiti artists. Such a subculture rejects payment for their artistic works but sternly execute their artwork in public walls. The other subculture encompasses those respectful graffiti artists who respect the private property and perceives the art for individual expression rather than conveying messages to the public. Therefore, artist that who stick to the roots of graffiti are known to advocate illegal graffiti facilitating vandalism. Such artists perceive walls as component of the community and hence no consent is required to paint them artistically with messages meant to oppose the ruling class to advocate individual-expression. Tucker and Farrell's studies noted that the community had no idea of what graffiti artist would tag on the walls. These artists cleverly interpreted such to censor and discouraged self-expression in the menial and low-class workers fueling vandalism. The graffiti artist breaks the law by their misplaced perception that a blank wall is obtrusive hence displeasing the eye than tagged walls. Such artists further view the blank walls as a symbol of a sterilized, tightly restricted environment (Oliver & Neal, 2010). Further the culture-jamming graffiti artistic feel offended since they feel the law favors those putting billboards for money. Unfortunately, they are denied those rights and feel they have a right to convey whatever they wish in the same manner the corporations. Description Vandalism acts by the graffiti artists arise from the fragmentation of the true meaning of what constitutes illegal graffiti. The graffiti artist fee shortchanged in the law regulation the self-expression. These artists feel that they should never be subjected into asking for permission from the private property owners to tag their walls. They are convinced that the walls are part of the community, and thus the best interest of the community is to tag the walls. A blank wall to them is a restrictive environment (Snyder, 2009). In the same manner, the corporations have a say on what to put on the billboards they also should enjoy such rights. In fact, the problem should only arise if they do their tagging’s for money. Therefore, they should be left to gang and advocate for the uncalled for social norms advocated by the greater American culture. Therefore, their artistic works should never be marked as vandalism. Interpretation The graffiti artists feel shortchanged in the greater American culture. They gang up to fight for their identities despite being marked as vandals. Moreover, the act in this way because they felt the law is subjective just like any law guiding expression and representation. In addition, their actions are fueled to change the unbecoming norms in the popular American culture (Gastman & Neelon, 2010). There are concerned to revamp the dominance by the ruling class. They feel they community is under the threat of the increasing dominance of the ruling class and hence should tag the walls to convey messages to the public for free. Further, they feel that the law is discriminative in nature and favors corporations who always determine the billboard messages. Conclusion The findings of this paper are significance to help understand the grievance of the graffiti artists to prevent the acts of vandalism. There is intense need for further studies to give the true position of the legality of the graffiti. Further, this will help the popular culture to eliminate the restrictive social norms that favor the ruling class. Reference Baird, J. A., & Taylor, C. (2011). Ancient graffiti in context. New York: Routledge. Gastman, R., & Neelon, C. (2010). The history of American graffiti. New York: Harper Design. Oliver, J., & Neal, T. (2010). Wild signs: Graffiti in archaeology and history. Oxford, England: Archaeopress. Snyder, G. J. (2009). Graffiti lives: Beyond the tag in New York's urban underground. New York: New York University Press. West-Pavlov, R. (2005). Transcultural graffiti: Diasporic writing and the teaching of literary studies. Amsterdam [u.a.: Rodopi. Appendices Appendix 1 CALIFORNIA | LOCAL Man, 18, suspected of extensive graffiti vandalism in Vista, Calif. March 7, 2014 | By Tony Perry SAN DIEGO -- An 18-year-old man suspected of being a prolific graffiti vandal in Vista, Calif., has been arrested, the San Diego County Sheriff's Department said Friday. The 303 acts of graffiti vandalism that the man, Bladimir Lopez, has been linked to have cost the city approximately $89,500 to clean, the department said. Lopez was arrested at home. The Sheriff's Department uses a computer system called Graffiti Tracker to gather information about instances of graffiti and to look for patterns, officials said. Appendix 2: Image Read More