Arguments Against Graffiti

Graffiti is a long living “symbol of youth and music culture, graffiti is one of the four elements of hip hop” (Wexler 6). Suzanne Wexler states that graffiti “first appeared on the New York subways in the 1970s, representing a form of public art” (6). For the most part, graffiti is tolerated, as long as it is aesthetically appealing and not defacing someone’s property. Problems arise when people go and deface a public place, such as an occupied business, building, house, car, etc. Then, the city has to pay money in order to hire people to go and remove the vandalism. There is a clear difference between malicious vandalism, the defacing of public property, and graffiti. Graffiti is an art form that takes a lot of thought on the image wanting to be portrayed, as well as practice to develop the ability to execute a permanent picture with spray paint, and the dedication to stick with this art form through having to avoid the police. As stated above, graffiti takes time, thought, and practice, it is not meaningless and random.
“Across the country, communities are searching for ways to combat tagging,” usually, “many cities try to discourage graffiti by removing it as quickly as possible” (Larrabee n. pag.). This has lowered the number of people trying to do graffiti by eliminating the ones that won’t keep putting their work back up time after time if it will just be removed. Many people consider graffiti an art, and almost an equal amount say "They call it art or a prank, but it really contributes to social decline" (Larrabee n. pag.). Apparently, when “you see graffiti on the subway, you get the perception the area is unsafe. Shoppers see it on buildings, and they worry they're in a high-crime neighborhood. They start staying away, and eventually property values go down, and more serious crime starts moving in,” (Larrabee n. pag.) so that would be a