Scribble Scrabble..oh look, i'm picasso.

Graffiti is many things to different kind of people. Some may think it is art in its purest form because it is free expression through a rebellious act. However, it is also viewed (by libertarians such as I am, and other fiscally conservative people) that graffiti marks up a beautiful neighborhood making it look dangerous and full of gang activity-it also takes our tax money to remove it-over and over, and over, and over, and over again. If they want to express their artistic side then why don’t the gangs and independent “taggers”come forth and ask for a specific space to do this-and perhaps they might get corporate sponsorship.

Guaranteed, if offered this opportunity they wouldn’t take it because it would mean conformity to what they rebel against- they always want to be made the victim so they can claim their right to vandalize personal and public property that hard-working people pay for to keep clean.

This sub-culture is based on competition as if a sport. According to Virginia Maksymowicz, graffiti cannot be considered public art because it does not maintained or used by the community, act on the community’s behalf, or open to judgment of all. How it compares to public art is clear- it doesn’t belong to the people. It isn’t functional and used by the people and not everyone can do it. It is purely based on a need to claim territory of a neighborhood that cannot ever completely belong to them. They do not demonstrate respect to leave things be. Compared to the art we saw in the subway station-they are just frivolous words and objects that aren’t of any quality or degree of skill. While some graffiti may, admittedly, be made by someone who has the potential to make it as an artist- it still does not contribute to a sense of community and trigger new and intriguing thoughts or offer social or political criticism.