Find solution
How do you graffiti good?

How do we stop graffiti as vandalism?

  • I know most of you believe graffiti is a form of art. I live in Montreal, and the city (as many others) has graffiti everywhere. I don't care much when I see graffiti in alleys. It certainly gives them some character. However, I don't like it when I see an historical building, or a beautiful old house with graffiti on it. I think it makes them look uncared and sometimes the go from being beautiful monuments to ugly buildings. I also hate seen graffiti on bus stops, churches, glass buildings, sculptures, etc. Who of you think this kind of graffiti should be stopped? (I welcome any opinion. If you like it, say it and say why do you like it) What would be your suggestion? Thanks!

  • Answer:

    I think one should have a permit to buy spray paint and it should only be allowed for like, work crews that use it for work. It's not really a great medium for art anyways, but that's just my oppinion. As for other types of vandalism, that is a bit harder to stop. There should be strict codes, especially on children, in the event that they are caught vandalizing. The criminals should be sent through programs that teaches them the value of property. Having very little growing up, my family always took care of their things and mourned the sight of destroyed property. People should be able to understand that anger must be controlled, and they are responsible for their actions. If someone can destroy someone elses things and not pay for it, to do that just for kicks, there is something seriously wrong with them and they must be penalized and reformed. Of course graffiti should be stopped. The government and school systems should find an effective way, in this media poisoned world, to continue teaching right from wrong, in order to stop the last shred of dignity humans have left. We have slipped so far in the past decades, it is truly horrific. Media games, shows, books, and movies need to be restricted as they once were. We cannot continue showing our children acts of destruction and violence because they have built up a tollerance for it and believe it is ok to do. It is "ok" to hurt people that disrespect people. It is "ok" to break things that don't belong to you. It is "ok" to allow cursing and use it in modern speech patterns. That's what kids are being brainwashed to think. Society will not be able to function much longer and will become decrepit in the next few decades, even more so, if we do not improve our lifestyle and environment. History has shown us that this is what we need to do, yet we ignore the 'signs' like grafitti. I know that I sound almost communistic by saying we should sensor the media and I am going against freedom of speech. Well you know what? Screw that! Freedom of speech is all well and good until it gets out of hand. Words are dangerous, actions are worse. If we can stem SOME of the violence, just a little, we can improve the next generation.

Anonymou... at Yahoo! Answers Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

Graffiti is not vandalism. Graffiti only exposes that we live beneath a hyper-capitalist paradigm that functions largely in fantasy by incorporating its system of marks, its sign games. It follows the logic of every imperative of this society, espescially the demands of the 'market', which require every economic entity to 'brand' itself and advertize, to produce and market a product, etc. However, in the 'illegal' mark, the graffiti graphic, the system is given a gift it cannot return: a brand image, which functions exactly as the McDonald's golden arches, but is not 'processed', not paid for, not integrated into the architecture of economic exchange. The result is that the system is held to face a mirror which reflects its vacuous meaninglessness, and (poetically) it implodes, collapses as it is made culpable to its own implicit nihilism. The excess, the remainder of this implosion is a space which has been reclaimed by all by there being in mark, now, a sign that reestablishes a reversibility between the one who lives in in a space and the space itself. The truth is, there is no violence against 'personal' or 'public' property, espescially not by painting. The revolt against property has been happening for some time now. Now with the internet, we see the beginning of the revolt against intellectual property. I admit that it is a little bit of a bummer that there isn't a BANKSY in every village (and if you haven't seen BANKSY, you should look him up - sometimes, I think the most outspoken critics of graffiti simply haven't seen the height of what graffiti can do), but graffiti, even when it sucks, does at bottom, show that people live with the bus stop, the church, the glass building, or the old house, and that *this* church, is *our* church, not simply the arm of the corporate infiltrating our space. What you should think of, since you already have the eye to critique what you see (this is a positive) is think about what could be written somewhere that cannot, or could not be erased. EX: can "No War" and an image of a dove painted on the side of a church be erased in good conscience?

there is a code of ethics for graffiti artist and bob feels all artist should follow them or atleast most of the rules. there is usually a mutual respect for other graffiti artist's work especially if it is a nice piece or something that the artist put a lot of work into. most graffiti artist wont do anything on churches most wont do them on land marks most wont do them on private property, we are talking about artist not someone who is purposley vandalizing someones house or property. Most wont do any on places such as museums and other places similar to that. However as we all know and evidently in your city, there are people who dont follow these ethics. Bob feels these kind of artist need to be stopped, but when all forms of graffiti are illegal no one can really stop them and then go and let the good artist who follow the code keep doing it. There are only a couple ways to stop this "negative" graffiti who are done mostly by toys who are just playing around and not really here for the art, the government can "declare" war on graffiti, which makes it harder to get painit and harder to acess areas and stricter punishments for getting caught, this will force the "die hard era" of graffit back into play and only the people who really wnat to do graffit and really want the art will continue to do it. The people who are here for the art and really care about graffit, tend to follow the code of ethics and their pieces tend to be nicer then people not really here for the art. Then theres the clean train movement, which would be where the state again could repair fences, put up barbed wire and cameras, paint over places more often and make it harder to reach good places to put up graffit, it is very similar to declaring war on graffit and often incoporated in the war on graffiti, but it does not involve making stricter punishment and using the police as much as declaring war does.

bob

sounds to me that you need to suggest to your local council a way of giving the graffitti artist somewhere to do there graffitti and then that will give them somewhere more suitable in australia we do have this project and it works well alot of our artist are now employed

lee

Make it a crime punishable by death

Bunny

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.