Luis's talk about Graffiti

Author: Billy Lau // Category:
I was inspired by Luis's Quote:
Urban art is not necessarily destruction of property, I think of it as more of coloring or decorating the city. Most of the property being painted is not even being used. I agree that urban art should not be done on important places such as religious places, cemeteries, and so on.
     Luis has a really good point here. I seen him do graffiti, and he is good. He does not do it on the walls, but he decorates his binder with them. Urban art is something you do if  live in or have a passion for city life. Urban art does decorate the city, because it is better than seeing a red brick old wall. Without Urban art the city will have more color to it, and artist can express better.
     Also, Luis mentioned about the property not being used. This is totally true. On plain white trucks, there are no words or anything, so why not add some color into it. Because, this is true ,there is a lot of  graffiti now on the white trucks I see. The brick red walls I also see daily. I hate the texture of the old moldiness that it has. Putting graffiti on it, will pretty it up. Graffiti should not be vandalism if no one is going to use the place. 
    Graffiti could also be used to express one's feelings. One can post ads and campaigns on the walls. It would be way more noticeable than any ad on the newspaper. The urban art style has an unlimited number of uses and it should not be banned if posted on the wall of streets.

1 Response to "Luis's talk about Graffiti"

Charlie Says :
September 17, 2010 at 7:28 PM

What stood out to me here is, "Graffiti should not be vandalism if no one is going to use the place." I think that's a good point--but it can get surprisingly more complicated than that. Ever heard of a guy called Banksy? Google him. Then check this out:

http://www.freep.com/article/20100515/ENT05/100514077/Graffiti-artist-Banksy-leaves-mark-on-Detroit-and-ignites-firestorm

Post a Comment