It is an indisputable fact the opinions differ widely on how graffiti should be dealt with. Some people hold the view that graffiti is an act of vandalism so are in favor of it being punished by law. Personally, I would be more inclined to consider graffiti as a defiant art form of self expression which must be handled with a different means so as it to be illustrated as a beautiful piece of art.
Trying to define graffiti it could be said that it is an outlet for youngsters to express themselves with the help of sprays and other graffiti tools which are mostly used on public surfaces or abandoned property. Furthermore, people participating in graffiti are motivated by their eagerness to convey personal feeling or social messages by provoking through their artistic talent. In addition, it is a way for youth to let off steam and rebel against society, not to mention to earn respect among their peers. Is this a reason though for them to be punished? I have to admit these youngsters have enormous creativity and in many cases they make a neighbourhood more attractive to the eye. Moreover, the excitement of being part of a graffiti community which has its own rules and codes allures them to this act.
On the contrary, graffiti tend to be felonious when it is embedded without the consensus of the authorities or the owner’s property. It is worth noting a large amount of money is spent for cleaning up surfaces. In addition, people feel violated when someone else takes it upon themselves to change the appearance of their property. As a result it becomes a willful or malicious act and an obligation for society to prosecuted offenders.
Overall, I feel that graffiti is an art form that deserves to be appreciated but under legal circumstances. This is possible to be achieved if youngsters are provided with venues to freely display their art work. For instance drawing in art books, for school events and why not a graffiti museum. This will diminish problems...