Should Graffiti Be Protected?

Any driver in an urban city can easily observe the passerby’s eyes soaring at graffiti. The graffiti definition on Google is writing or drawing scribbled, scratched or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place. Even though some people consider them as a form of art, for me, it is just destruction of property, which is also known as vandalism. Since they were all done without the consent of the public or the permission of the property owner, they are just pieces of nuisances that make any passerby frown. Although the graffiti in Long Island City gained artistic recognition, attracting many tourists, the artists cannot demand the complete ownership of the drawing. I just hope that graffiti can evolve in a positive direction so the artists wouldn’t be blamed as a vandalist. Also, the city can provide the graffiti artists for a certain area where they can freely express their messages on walls without breaking any laws.

In France graffiti is illegal, so it's not protected, because the most of time graffitis are done on private property. Sometimes there is exposition in museum about Graffiti, and in specific location graffiti are allow. I think graffiti is art, and it should be protect but it depends of many things, sometimes graffitis are useless because people who write them only write their names. It shows that some people do not have any talent at drawing graffitis and the result doesn't represent art for me. This type of graffitis make a bad image of graffiti in general while there are beautiful and made by artists.

Graffiti have always been a source of altercation. Does graffiti are a work of art ? That is the question. I think graffiti is a kind of art so they must be protected. But I think there is two category of graffiti. Drawing graffiti and written graffiti. I think drawing graffiti are a work of art but I think written graffiti aren't a work of art. They are often ugly compared to drawing graffiti. There is a lot of beautiful graffiti in the world, I think graffiti make city beautiful because they make a city more colourful. I think graffiti must be on public property not on a private property. Except if the owner agree.

I think graffiti is a work of art because it allows individuals to express themselves by drawing or writing. If what is being done is not offensive, it is a true work of art. The people who do this are all very creative, and express themselves through drawing. It looks like it could take a long time to do, and it takes a lot of talent for them to do it and make it look good. When I see graffiti on an abandoned building or on the side of a train, it amazes me because of all of the hard work and talent put into it. I do not think anyone owns graffiti, because most of the time it is done illegally, and it is mostly done on private property or privately owned objects. If it is causing a problem or is offensive in any way, than the person that owns the property can choose what they do with it. But, if it is in an abandoned place, it is not affecting anyone or causing harm, then no one owns it, and it can be covered with more or it can just be left.

Graffiti is art. It takes a lot of skill and talent too be able to make graffiti look good. But, Just because it is art doesn't mean it should be protected or the artists shouldn't be protected from crimes of vandalism. Graffiti as an art is good. Often times it inspires people and good graffiti just looks cool. The problem comes when graffiti is on property not owned by the artist. No one owns graffiti. People own the surface in which the graffiti was made. Its like if you told Picasso to paint you a picture but on a canvas you already owned and you would still keep the canvas then yes Picasso is the artist but it is not Picasso picture. you can still decide what you want to do with the picture. Picasso can plead and beg all he wants but if you want to take it up you have the legal right to do so. that is how graffiti works. graffiti is cool but if you vandalize someone's property you have little to no say on what happens to it.

Even though grafitti can at times be beautiful, artists need to realize that they are sometimes not painting on their property. In my opinion, anything can be art, so even graffiti is a form of art. The artist is taking time out of their lives to make it, so it should in fact be considered art. On the other hand, graffiti is a form of vandalism, which is against the law, so it shouldn't be protected. The government should not protect anything that is against the law. Overall, graffiti should not be protected because even though it expresses feeling, it is not drawn on an appropriate setting.

i agree with the people saying that graffiti is art work. because really it is. its big painting for people to see and for those not over thinking it and turning its meaning around to enjoy the paintings.

Graffiti in my view, is art because not everyone can do it. It takes a skill that only few people can do well. I think that graffiti should be protected because it takes skill and time to make the art. Unless it’s gang affiliated than I think anyone should be able to tag or draw on any building or structure that isn’t being occupied. When it comes to who owns the graffiti, it’s either no one or the owner of the building because you can’t really own graffiti on a wall but at the same time if it’s your building it’s your responsibility to clean or keep it there. I feel like the government should protect graffiti because it can be better than just regular art on a small canvas but instead it’s on big scale of a wall. The art of graffiti also can take hours and a lot of money. When people do graffiti and then it gets covered up the next day by a white paint, all that time and money is gone.

Graffiti should be protected. It should be protected because of the visual artists right act and because it is used to show freedom of expression. When the case regarding the graffiti started, Mr. Baum stated, “This is a case about respecting people’s property.” This is true because technically it is Mr. Baum’s property, but one could also make the claim that the art it the artist’s property because they put something that is their own on it to make it theirs. One could compare this to cave paintings from the stone age. They were just drawings on the wall, but overtime they became a landmark of history, and we should treat graffiti the same way.

Graffiti is a definitely a form of art that shows a lot of expression. Graffiti should be protected by the law and be considered a true form of art. These artist have put so much time and effort to do these amazing pieces just to have them be washed away like they meant nothing. I also agree that if it is private property, the owner of that property can do whatever it wants with the art. The artist should present their masterpieces on their own property, or public property where they have been given permission to do so. Cities should have certain locations where they can express themselves and not have to worry about it being destroyed. People often associate graffiti to be gang related but it can be a lot more. In the article it says “For 20 years, 5Pointz was an offbeat tourist destination that not only attracted thousands of visitors, but also helped transform Long Island City into the thriving residential neighborhood it is today.” This helped Long Island grow in a positive way and did not deserve to be torn down. It was a part of what Long Island was and it should have been protected especially since he was given permission. I believe that graffiti should be protected if it is done in the right matter. Artist should show their art on their own property, public property, or places where they have been given permission to do so.

Graffiti is art. Everything we see, do, or say is some form of art. Art is defined as the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. In my opinion, graffiti is not vandalism, but a way to express ones ideas and thoughts in public. But wat is graffiti? Is everything drawn on the walls is art? When I talk about graffiti, I mean the big colorful drawings we see on buildings, the ones that make us stop mid-walk and think about the message that the artist tried to tell us. Obviously, if graffiti is on private property, the owner has the right to determine the faith of the drawing, and if someone just spray-paints curse words and offensive drawings, it is just rude and disrespectful. I believe that when graffiti is just a form of expression for someone who wants to have a say in the world, who wants to convey a message, it should be appreciated and protected by federal law. Political graffiti is often thought provoking and can stir the public into action. That is one of many examples of how graffiti can influence public opinion. Although controversial, graffiti provides a stage for expressing ones opinions and thoughts, and if controlled properly, graffiti can be a form of art at its finest, it can contribute not only to the scenery, but to the mind set of the public.

According to Oxford dictionary, art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. I believe that graffiti should be protected by law and classified as a form of art as it is a visual form of self-expression and it should not be linked to vandalism. First of all, there is a difference between graffiti and vandalism. Nowadays, many people like to link vandalism and graffiti, claiming that graffiti damages public property. However, graffiti is a type of art, and people do not have to agree on it's beauty in order for it to appear on blank street walls, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder and according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "freedom of expression is the right of every individual to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers". Secondly, I believe that Graffiti can be used as an educational tool. Using graffiti, artists can make beautiful statements in their community and affects its people for the better as they would walk by these statement on a daily basis. For example, artists can cover the walls with inspirational quotes and important life lessons in order to promote positivity in their neighborhood. To tie up, there is no doubt that some people can use graffiti to vandalize public property, but usually it is not the case. Artists use graffiti to inspire and we should not stop them from helping us grow as a society.

Graffiti is art, the same way anything else is art, but it's got certain societal expectations (for it to be offensive, gross, etc). And this simply isn't true. On the topic of it being 'meant to last' or not, it depends on the artist and I think it's a little ridiculous to bring a new set of rules to the table when it comes to what is meant to last or not. If someone sprays something on your private land/building, of course you have the right to ash it off. The owner of the art is the artist, but the owner of the canvas is who really decides if it stays or not. I don't think it should be protected by law unless the person had a right to put it there, because it's technically vandalism, but at the same time I think the person shouldn't be punished under the law for creating instead of destroying. Really, it's a case by case basis.

Graffiti, although it can be very disrespectful, is a work of art. Just like all other forms of art, it does deserve to be protected. However, when that art uses another's property as a canvas, that's when the rules change. Imagine if Leonardo Da Vinnci painted the Mona Lisa on the side of the Florence Cathedral. That would be considered violating private property and the owner of the property could get rid of the art. Graffiti deserves to be protected, but it should be done in a way and in a place so that way it couldn't be considered violating property. If a graffiti artist creates art on his own or on public property, that's fine. But if graffiti artist creates their art on the side of a privately owned building (whether it be with or without permission), the owner of said building should be able to do with it as they wish. Federal law does, in fact, protect pieces of art such as paintings and statues. I do believe that graffiti is a work of art and should be protected, but only if it is on public grounds or if the graffiti artist owns the property. If a graffiti artist does so on private property then it should be out of the government's hands.

Whether graffiti (owned, by the way, by whoever purchased the can of spray paint it came in) counts as a work of art or not honestly just depends on the care that was put into it. For instance, the incredibly detailed face in the photograph should definitely be considered art, as a lot of care clearly went into it. However, just spray-painting a few obscenities with little to no care put in shouldn't be considered art. It's clearly meant to last, otherwise why would so much time, care, and spray paint be put into it? All in all, whether it's art or not depends on how you look at it.

This issue is as simple as: graffiti is a form of art when intended to be art. Tagging, as defined by Britannica, “entails the repeated use of a single symbol or series of symbols to mark territory” and is related to a gang. Graffiti as an art form should be protected, and sometimes it can be a memorable part of the city. What would the Bronx be without its unique graffiti? What would NC State University be without its signature graffiti tunnel? Graffiti should be deemed as public art and is owned by not only the creator, but whoever it speaks to as well. If someone does not appreciate the art form, that’s fine, they don’t have to take pride or ownership for it. However, if someone does relish in the creativity of others art works, no matter if the medium is concrete, then by all means they should take pride and ownership in the fact that the art is in their city- as well as go one step further to preserve it. It’s saddening that 5Pointz was torn down despite being “beloved”, “attracting thousands of visitors”, and essentially “transforming Long Island City into a thriving residential neighborhood” as stated by the article. If people are upset by seeing aerosol art- a solution should be to create centralized spots for artists to express themselves. Then the graffiti won’t be so widespread or randomized throughout the city or town (of course this only works if main goal of the town is to hide the graffiti). Ultimately, though, it’s sad to see self expression get destroyed.

In the article I read today, the opinion that was expressed was that the graffiti helps the city become more of a tourist attraction, stating that it has turned long island New York into a, “thriving residential neighborhood.” I agree with this opinion in many ways. Graffiti should be classified as a work of art. My definition of a work of art is an expression of your emotions into paintings of graphics. These people that do graffiti are doing just that. They just need the space and the canvas to do so. These artist spend lots of time presenting their craft and talent and that is what makes it so special. I think there should be designated buildings that allow these artist to present their talent so there is no problem with private property and tearing these works of art down.

Graffiti should be classified as a form of art as it is the result of self-expression and reacting to the world and issues circulating around during that current period of time. But just like time, graffiti is supposed to naturally fade away as those issues resolve and new issues, possibly graffiti, takes its place on the front stage, after all, how can a mindset and belief stay constant and unchanged just like the graffiti on the wall. It does not. Mindsets, beliefs, and whatever the graffiti was supposed to express constantly changes with the time and the art should reflect it. But that art must live out its full lifespan and period of significance in the public eye, and if that art is removed or painted over with white paint, it sends a strong signal that those issues don’t matter nor does self-expression in the eyes of the corporations or federal government. So to prevent that the federal government should protect expressive graffiti as it is a public art that affects and invokes everyone to reevaluate their opinion and self, something no corporation, person, or federal government should actively work to remove.

Graffiti is art and art is expression. The art on the side of the street, created with a can of paint, is just as beautiful and important as the art displayed in galleries. Art is a precious gift that should be protected. As humans, we use our voice to explain how we feel, and express ourselves on a deeper level. The same can be said about art. Artists may use their art to express a deeper vision or just to share what is on their mind. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights states that all citizens are subject to freedom of speech. Just like our verbal speech is protected in the Bill of Rights, the government should protect artists visual speech. The graffiti displayed in the 5Pointz complex is powerful and captivating, otherwise it would not have been visited so often and would not have had such drastic effects on the surrounding neighborhood. The graffiti could have been the key component of getting gang related kids off the streets, or provided an escape to someone who experienced pressures at home, or even saved someone's life. I would really like to know why Mr. Wolkoff, after so many years, decided to tear down the 5Pointz complex. It was the home of beautiful murals that added color and character to the neighborhood of Long Island City. A new structure could have been built somewhere else. Did the beauty and the significance that came along with the 5Pointz complex not outweigh the forecasted benefits that came along with the development of a new structure?

I think that certain types of graffiti should be protected, but not all. Graffiti is a type of art people use to express themselves or convey their thoughts. There is a difference between art and vandalism, and as long as the graffiti doesn’t portray hate or harm towards people it should be protected. When most people think graffiti they think of gangs tagging public property, but there’s a lot more to graffiti. For instance, this type of street art allows artists to convey a message and get their point across in a way that can speak out to others. There’s a saying that says that a picture is worth a thousand words, and by creating graffiti these artists give their viewers insight into their own world. Just one glance at this art, shows the viewer what might be spread over 10 pages in a book.

Graffiti is an expression of art and personality. It should be protected unless it is being used as a negative form of art.

Graffiti should be protected so we can paint over the White House & finally express ourselves!!!

Graffiti Is The Greatest Type Of Art It Should Be Protected

There is two sides to this issue. Graffiti has always been portrayed as a gang supported act of harm, and anger. Today there are gangs in almost every city, and in almost every city there is graffiti, which can affect the beauty, and cleanliness of the city. Many cities that rely on tourism that have gangs can lose money due to people tagging and destroying property, which turns tourists away. Graffiti can destroy billboards, buildings, signs, doorways, vehicles, alley ways, and other places which can lead to millions in property damage. When people tag buildings it costs the owners of the property money to hire painters and buy paint and pressure washers to remove the slur. Despite the owners removing graffiti, it still leaves large whitewashed marks on the buildings that are ugly, and an eyesore to look at. Street art is different than graffiti. In many laid back cities, many politicians dedicated areas or donated buildings for artists to express their creative talents, and abilities. This is a great way to help promote growing artists, and involve a sense of a relaxed city where you can embrace your creativity. I think dedicated areas where graffiti that is pleasant, appropriate, and embraces creativity should be celebrated, but I think art needs to be responsible. In conclusion, graffiti is okay when is it is clean, appropriate, safe, and on property that is dedicated to art, and that we need more prevention programs to fight vandals who take advantage of this.

I think graffiti should be protected. Graffiti is a form of art and expresses the feelings of an artist. This type of art is beautiful and has different meanings to it. Opinions are expressed to different politics and events happening. People need to a way to share their thoughts on different matters, and art is the best way. I do think there should be restrictions to it. Graffiti should not be on private property. People wouldn't like it to find graffiti on their nice houses or buildings. We are still respecting graffiti but putting a restriction on where it should be painted. Different artists and their pieces can also get famous. For example, the Banksy is a famous artist that creates street art through dark humour with stenciling technique. Artworks can get popular and be known to many people around the world. Graffiti should be protected because it expresses people's opinions and stories.

Unbelievable that people think they can paint on other people's property and call it art. I doubt these guys would like it if I painted on their doorway!

Graffiti is a work of art. Its a way that people can express how they feel or what they think. Graffiti, in my opinion, should be considered as a work of rt and protected by the law. Having graffiti could make the world a lot more colorful than what it is. The graffiti that some people may use could be an excitement to anybody with a big imagination. Graffiti is just an expression that should be protected, tearing down people's artwork is not okay!

Graffiti in most cases can be classified as art, but only if the artist has permission to do so and it is a worthwhile piece (i.e, vibrant and colorful that means something, not a name or random word). A very popular graffiti artist known as "Banksy" makes very meaningful art, and actually raises property value where he paints. However, if it is on private property with no permission to start, they should not be there and should be charged for defacing property and trespassing.

Graffiti is a way to express your thoughts to the world and bring attention to societal issues that no one seems to care about. Graffiti should be classified as art, in my opinion, because it can be beautiful and it almost always as a deeper meaning behind it. I understand people not liking graffiti with inappropriate words/images but most graffiti should be protected. Graffiti is owned by the artist AND the community because the art could be connected to the community.

Graffiti is art. A way to express what one is feeling or to speak out. one display of art shows a ton of emotion and tells a story along with the picture itself. The art itself brings something bigger than words and should be protected. the artist owns the art no matter where it is or what its on. I think it should be protected.

It depends on what the graffiti is. If it is something that should be there but it should be protected at all time.

I do think graffiti is an art, because it lets the artist express themselves and it brings something to light that not all ready. I do think graffiti is meant to last because that piece of art could tell a story about that community and it might has some history involved in it. I believe the graffiti is is owned by the artist and the community and I say that because it could have been made for that community or for the history of the community. I do think graffiti should be protected by federal law because graffiti is a form of art. For example sculptures because your building something that shouldn't be a work of, but it is because it could tell a story. Why would you want to stop people from expressing themselves its not like there committing a crime. I think graffiti is a blessing in disguise. That's my take on the graffiti should be protected.

Graffiti should be protected unless its something bad or demeaning.

Graffiti is art. A way to speak against racial and sexist ways. A way to show your emotions and bring a bigger meaning to something small. To bring a different side to picture. That picture below is beautiful. To somebody those words mean something. The pictures mean something. Art is anything. Art is speaking. Singing drawing painting. Dancing and anything else under the sun. Anything can be used to describe and feel and show. Every word and song and painting speaks to people differently. They make everyone feel. Even if the feel differently. If you want to say that something so beautiful isnt art, you do not know what art is. Art is tears and smiles. Feelings and expression. Simple things turned complicated. Complicated things turned simple. All these things and more make art what it is. Meaningful Beautiful.

In this world of the poor, the silenced, and the hate, the murals of the people speak louder than any words could. It is often that the graffiti you see is provocative, but its also often you see murals that speak to you no matter who you are, ones that tell a story. But you cant just pick a needle out of a hay stack and pick the ones that are good and bad, so i don't have an answer for 'should it be protected' but i can say it is art work that is sadly covered up.

i think art is a beautiful thing especially graffiti art its found and many random places but never fails to amaze people. to me it classify's as art because its a person hand made piece, drawing. graffiti is meant to last but obviously not on government building or private properties.

In my opinion, graffiti is a work of art so it should be protected because people actually express their feelings. Yes, people can express their feelings in different ways, but people want to have a different approach on it. They want to have fun. They want to be creative. The graffiti that people do may have some kind of story attached to it. It can just be there to inspire other people or it can mean something to the artist that took their time to draw it. Also, graffiti takes time and for someone to draw it just to have it broken down into a million pieces, might hurt their feelings. They took the time out of their lives to draw it. But the artists do have to respect the property they're doing it on. It would be polite if they asked the owner first before just doing it because if they just do, it will be considered as vandalizing. I do hope graffiti starts being protected because i'm interested in the work of art from others.

In my opinion graffiti does count as a work of art because it's a artist expressing what they are feeling at that time and moment. It depends on the location of the graffiti if it should protected or not. IF the graffiti is on a private property then it should be protected but only if the have permission by the owner to do it. if is just on a random building then it shouldn't be protected because the building is not theirs so other graffiti artist can put graffiti on that same building if they want too.

I think that graffiti should be protected but only in designated areas. They should make certain areas designed for people to express them selves. Every property owner should have the choice of weather or not to allow graffiti. Other public places should be allowed to have appropriate graffiti. Of course graffiti should not be allowed on landmarks, government builds or things of that sort but graffiti is a work of art that should be protected.

It depends on what the graffiti is and where its located. If it somewhere where it shouldn't be than it should be protected. Or if the graffiti is something bad then it should be protected.

I think that graffiti should be protected from the people that have always been denying it. Because the people who are denying it don't know that whoever did the graffiti had gave up their time and effort, but in the ending all of the people who have been denying it should be sorry for what they are doing because it does not look like a hard job, but when you actullay try to do it they would realize that it is actullay hard than they would actullay think so they should stop from non-protecting it and then start to actullay protect it.

I believe that graffiti is classified as a work of art. Because I think it is where they express there feeling and want to show there work. It should be protected but it depends on where the graffiti is located like if it was on a private property it wouldn't be okay. But if they have permission it would be good. I think the owners own the graffiti work once it done. The Brooklyn trial should make the artwork protected

Depending on where the graffiti is at depends on if it should be protected or not. For example, if there is graffiti on a landmark place like the empire state building then, of course, it should be cleaned because that is a well-known building. But if it's on an old building where it isn't being used and the art is good then I believe they should keep it up.

Depending on where the graffiti is located, it should be protected. Graffiti can be beautiful. When I'm in the car and pass pictures and things people have painted, it makes me happy. I love art. Also in my opinion, it should not be anywhere nice. For example, schools and nice public buildings are a place where it should not be. I believe they should make certain places just for graffiti. There should be places where people can paint to show off their abilities and express them selves.

I believe graffiti can be a very beautiful thing, though I do believe there is a difference between beautiful art and vandalism. While some people express themselves with writing and others with music or dance, others may need a few cans of spray paint and a freight car as a canvas to make their mark on our world. Just think how inspirational and beautiful the Berlin Wall and the art that covers it is to our world and not only the surrounding community.

I believe that graffiti is an expression of skill and creativity that conveys important messages and evokes powerful thoughts and emotions. It’s a kind of art that is meant to last and if there is a lot of public support and adoration, it is worthy of protection. Though I believe that graffiti is owned by the artists themselves, I wish that there was some sort of formal, legal way of granting the permission to paint the owner’s property without the risk of arrest nor the risk of having it covered or removed without the artist's permission. I think the danger of law is a part of the history and culture of graffiti art and will probably remain so, but because it has become more accepted and common there should be a legal process that artists and building owners can follow so the rights of both parties are protected and cases like 5Points don’t happen as often. Graffiti is a significant part of urban American culture that has the right to be viewed in person and not just in pictures. I think that once the negative connotations associated with graffiti are no longer as prominent, then the law will be more willing to implement ways to protect it.

I do believe that graffiti classifies as a work of art. It is a way that people express themselves and they often turn out as complex and wonderful as any other work of art. Though I appreciate graffiti and the work the is put into making this type of art, I don't entirely believe that it is ephemeral on all properties. It is the right of an owner that owns a private building to discourage graffiti in his or her building because it is part of their ownership rights. I think that Graffiti artists show try to express their art in public places more often rather than private owned property. I do believe that private companies should start to look at graffiti in a different way because of it's appeal to tourists but that does not mean that they should be forced, by law, to accept graffiti, even if they do not appreciate it, on their bought property. The graffiti artist has a right of ownership to the art, but they shouldn't expect that the owner of any given private building will appreciate their art as they or any of people do. The brooklyn trial should not protect graffiti by federal law to the point where owners of private buildings are forced to accept it on their buildings. I still would like for people to appreciate graffiti art more but I do not think that protecting it with federal law will do any good to our society.

“This is a case about people’s property” This sentence stood out to me when I was reading this article. As humans, while we sometimes may wish we could just share everything in the world, abandon petty disputes over what belongs to who, and frolic through fields of butterflies hand in hand, it is in our nature to want to claim ownership. After all, the enlightenment philosopher, John Locke, whose ideas inspired our constitution, asserted that all men have a right to life, liberty, and property. Though the case in question is about many things, Mr. Baum’s assertion regarding “property” raises the question: Is art property? And if so, does a building covered in art belong to the artists or the developer? On the one hand, artists are entitled to claim their art as their property. This enables them to make a living off of the works they create and allows them to benefit from the recognition they deserve. However, apart from the physical entity of a sculpture or canvas, art is more of a metaphysical idea than an object. 5Pointz may have physically belonged to Mr.Wolkoff, but for the past 20 years I feel that the artists who contributed to the vibrancy of this neighbourhood were the intellectual owners of the space. The art in question could not have existed without 5Pointz as a canvas, but 5Pointz also owes its success to the graffiti on its walls.

I believe that graffiti should be protected, but to a certain point. if it is a mural that has meaning to it or tells a story in a certain way then it should be protected. It also depends on the location of the art of graffiti. The city should have locations where its allowed for an individual to perform there talents of art. The only time graffiti should not be protected is when its street graffiti. so called from "tagging crews", which makes the city look bad compared to actual art and murals the artist takes there time.

Imagine that something that you worked so hard on, that held meaning for you, was destroyed. How would you feel? In my opinion, aerosol art most definitely classifies as a work of art. These works of art hold meaning and give a unique and vibrant decoration to our society. The artist who makes the aerosol art should be the owner of that art because they are the ones who put in the hard work in making these masterpieces. But I also understand the fact that whoever owns the property might not want their building covered in graffiti. But in this case they had permission. In the article it states, “For 20 years, 5Pointz was an offbeat tourist destination that not only attracted thousands of visitors, but also helped transform Long Island City into the thriving residential neighborhood it is today.” This quote helps support my opinion that graffiti art should be protected by federal law. This quote from the article proves the fact that these artworks drew tourists, and made Long Island City vibrant and unique. Therefore, I stand by my opinion that these works of art should be protected by federal law to prevent meaningful, beautiful and unique works of art from being destroyed and forgotten.

I don't think the artist owns the graffiti if they have painted it on someone elses private property. I don't think it should be protected by law if it is done on somones property without their consent. Or if its done on abandon property because that does not make it the graffi artists either. I think its just vandalism because you can create art without vandalizing someones property. If you want to make graffi or "aerosol art" you can create it on your own property. But I do not believe it should be protected unless you were asked to make it.

Vandals one and all!

I think that graffiti is definitely a form of art that takes time and craftsmanship I also think it should be treated that way.I think art should evoke emotion and start a conversation when I myself see graffiti I think it shows a form of art that is intriguing and does everything art is considered or is considered to most people. It takes time and skill and i think pieces of artwork should be appreciated as they can bring color and life to place.I think graffiti is just another way for people to express themselves in art.

Jazmin, Anaheim, California Yes Indeed aerosol art is like any particular kind of art. In my point of view I consider this as art because it involved artists to create such a crative project with a meaning behind it. As we know Long Island City was troubled by crime and these street artists came up withan amazing project just for the troubles that the city was going through. After building was filled with creative, unique, colorful murals it has attracted many tourist. That eventually became "the world's largest open-air aerosol museum." When someone comes up with a creative idea to help others see something wonderful or that will have the impact on someone should be their right to own the graffiti because the artist themselves came up with this idea.

When I see people denying that graffiti is art, I think of Jean-Michel Basquiat. Basquiat first achieved fame as a graffiti artist in Lower Manhattan in the 1970's. Nowadays, though he has been dead for 29 years, his art sells for millions upon millions of dollars. He could have gone nowhere, and we wouldn't be able to enjoy his art today if not for the spray paint pieces he made when he was a teenager. It is a similar situation for Keith Haring, who painted on buildings both legally and illegally. I'm not condoning law breaking, but would we would be better off without the works of Keith Haring and Jean-Michael Basquiat? Do buildings that can have the paint washed off of them matter more than the budding creativity that could belong to a new Basquiat or Haring?

Graffiti is like any other work of art and is meant be a form of expression, and I believe that it should be considered public art but not if on private property. I think that the owner of the property with the graffiti painted on it "owns" the graffiti, but the artist themselves have all the credit. Overall, graffiti should be legal but only in certain areas. If private property were to be painted on, then it should be considered illegal.

Graffiti lets us show our artistic skills to the world. Some graffiti shows what people are feeling. Graffiti is art that will be in the world for a long time because people love to show their talent.

People have all different kind of points of view regarding graffiti. And art is a form that people use to express themselves. I think graffiti should not be protected by higher authority because that is why there are artists who paint murals. But i am not saying all graffiti that is done does not have value. Graffiti is mostly used today to mark your territory by taggers. Graffiti is considered illegal so people who do it should not have their form of art protected.

The distinction between graffiti and guerrilla art seems to be whether or not the work could be installed in another location or context without fundamentally altering it.

I believe that graffiti does classify as art because it is a form of self expression. However, this does not mean I think that graffiti should be considered public art or be protected by the government. I feel this way because graffiti is quite often used to deface a certain place, idea, or value. If an artist is hired or asked to paint a mural or create any other piece of art, I do not consider this graffiti. I consider this to be commissioned art that is allowed to be there. Graffiti is illegal artwork that an artist put in a place regardless of what the rules are. I don't think graffiti should be protected. If people want art on walls or the side of bridges, they can just hire an artist to do it for them.

I believe that the idea of destroying graffiti is wrong. Graffiti in some cases shows history and helps people see what ideas flow through the minds of the individuals. Destroying this art work should never be done and the people trying to ruin this art should think to themselves is it really necessary. Is it really hurting the building structurally? Think about it, the graffiti grabs attention and makes people want to investigate.

You should just have buildings where you are allowed to draw out your feeling and you just paint over the old art. Then you wont get arrested and it is what they like to do.