Crime vs. Art: The Interminable Debate The issue of whether or not graffiti is appropriate for public spaces appears to never end. This is due to the fact that, usually, the rhetors involved do not reach stasis on all levels. There is typically a large gap in the debate stalling the conversation. Heather Mac Donald, Lu Olivero, “Graffiti”, Lady Pink, Gerald Witt, and Heidi Wigdahl throw themselves into the ring and add their own views on the matter. While these six authors agree on the fact that graffiti exists, they do not solely agree on one definition, and once they get to the quality aspect they divide themselves in half and none agree on a specific policy that is the most reasonable.
To start, all six articles agree that graffiti…show more content…
For the most part the writers can agree that graffiti is vandalism. Some of the writers explicitly say that graffiti is vandalism whereas others allude to it. (Pink par. 4; Olivero par. 1; Wigdahl par. 15; MacDonald par. 3; “Graffiti” par. 2). Wigdahl, MacDonald, Witt and “Graffiti” are supporters of vandalism as the sole definition of graffiti. Witt’s absence of graffiti when positively mentioning public art implies that he does not view graffiti as art but as crime. Whereas the other three actually verbalize their dissent for graffiti. For instance, one article states, “graffiti is property damage plain and simple” (“Graffiti par. 2). Wigdahl and MacDonald make similar accusations.
However, some do not explicitly refer to graffiti as a crime, but an art form. Even though Lady Pink and Olivero agreed that graffiti can be considered vandalism, they see it more as art. As graffiti artists themselves, they view this subject in a completely different light. This is shown when Olivero states, “graffiti, a vandalism sub-genre, is differentiated by its aesthetics, or its message” (Olivero par. 1). He shows that he agrees with the other side of the argument but that there is more than one dimension to graffiti to strictly label it as a crime. Lady Pink has similar views as Olivero (Pink par. 7). Because they empathize with their opponents’ views, but still have a different perspective, stasis has been reached.
At this point they have reached a