Graffiti Argumentative Essay

Graffiti has been a topic of debate for decades. Is it art, or is it a crime? However, it is not one or the other, says Eric Felisbert, in his article, “Legal Venues Celebrate Graffiti as an Art Form,” from the New York Times, “from the perspective of a graffiti writer, the debate about whether graffiti is art or crime is pointless because, ideally, it is both.” Although it’s artistic merits can't be denied, graffiti is still in fact a form of vandalism. Graffiti is not a crime - trespass and damage to property are, says Felisbert. Artists will tag the property of the public and private, which in turn becomes costly for taxpayers and business and property owners for it to be cleaned up.
Felisbert states that Graffiti has become a work of art, where young artists come out of the shadows and use graffiti as a form of self-expression. “There are two types of graffiti: “bombing,” which is volume-based, with writers aiming to tag as many places as possible, and there is “burning,” which is an artistic enterprise” Felisbert states. Certain people state that …show more content…
These artists see themselves, despite the criminal activity that they are fighting to represent who they are and what they want. Felisbert adds, “There would be fewer examples of graffiti art in this city without the legal venues, and we should push for more of them. Even then, I truly miss seeing real graffiti in its purest form.” Graffiti is an art and a crime. But it can be done legally, with legal venues.
That pegs the question: are legal venues worth it for a street artist? Does it take away the whole reason they are doing graffiti? Felisbert states that, “few legal venues allow for