Street art
Should teenagers be punished for graffity? Graffity is the way of expressing yourself, your feelings and concerns, but at the same time damages public property.
Street art should be allowed
Side Score: 11
|
 |
Street art is illegal
Side Score: 15
|
|
|
|
|
Street art is a way to express ourselves, to deliver a certain message to the public. . . .by damaging and marring personal and public property! If you own the building, then you've the right to do whatsoever with it as you please. Going around and painting gang symbols and profanities, or even benevolent messages, is a crime and violation of property rights if you haven't the permission of the owner of the building or fence or sign or whatever it is which you are defacing! Side: Street art is illegal
Street art has it's own purpose. It is the way to express concerns or communicate ideas against of established government... So lets think why do youth choose this way of expressing their concerns. May be because they scared of expressing themselves in other way, or they know that they won't be listened. So most of the today's teens see street art as the safe way of expressing themselves and communicating. Side: Street art should be allowed
1
point
Art should never have boundaries some of the most amazing artists in the world may not have an outlet to create on or in and street art could display their talent and ideas to the world. Art should be available to the entire world regardless of class or distinction. Every street should be a gallery. Side: Street art should be allowed
1
point
STREET art breathes life into the sameness of our scrubbed-clean suburban sprawl. It transforms hulks of bare cement to give a city vibrancy, character and expression. Side: Street art should be allowed
|
3
points
I support people expressing themselves, but they don't have to express themselves by damaging someone's private property. How about they ask the owner of the building politely if they can put graffiti art on it? Then the artist gets paid and gets to express themselves. And no laws are broken. It's a win-win. Side: Street art is illegal
Most of the street art is done on public buildings. They belong to the government. And I haven't seen any examples of street art which were not pleasing to the eye. I have never seen dirty things painted on walls, buildings, of course if they weren't made just by some people who are not into street art. Most of the time there is a message in a street art: the expression of social issue, reminder of tragic event or anti-governmental image. It would certainly be disappointing to see any paint on your building, but, as I said, most of the graffiti is done in poor neighborhoods, where it was developed, and buildings there are public property, not public. I don't think people feel disgusted when they see graffiti on a public building. In some way, graffiti brings colors to poor "grey" neighborhoods. Side: Street art should be allowed
I agree with your point, not everyone wants their property to be damaged. Somebody can say it is vandalism, but on the other hand it is kind of art, self-expression. Maybe artists should transfer their street art for those people who want it in their homes, who probably will able to pay for their job. But still street art exists, it doesn't look so bad, moreover it is normally to see this kind of art in the streets. Side: Street art is illegal
1
point
1
point
I agree with you no one can't go around and damage public or someone's property. But in this case compromise should be found. Authorities should be more tolerant to street artists and allow street art in certain areas of city. It would beneficial for both sides. Less property would be damaged and street artists will have space to express themselves. Side: Street art is illegal
|
