1.) In the Prologue, Austin says that there was a misrepresentation of writing as vandalism in the media, but isn't graffiti technically vandalism? Or are have we been brought up to believe that it is? I believe that if I had no knowledge that graffiti was a form of vandalism and was exposed to it later in life I would not think anything of it, except maybe to appreciate it. When issues or concepts are framed either in a negative or positive light in the media it has the power to alter the public's perception.
2.) The big argument is whether or not writing, or graffiti, should be seen as an art form. However, who determines what is art and what isn't? A government official and an art critic or gallery owner are going to have very different opinions and interpretations of art and aesthetic. Art is completely subjective and as long as someone credits the work as "art", people will believe it. If Duchamp can put a urinal in museum and have it called a major landmark in art, why can't graffiti be considered an art form? Isn't it more aesthetically pleasing than a urinal?
3.) Did people like John Lindsay and other government officials and organizations take the "war on graffiti" too far? Organizations against writers and writing were formed that used near military tactics to try to put an end to this "unauthorized" writing. They even believed some of the early writings to be "coded references to upcoming terrorist attacks". Really? Is it necessary to spend tens of millions of dollars on this "epidemic" when they had far more severe things to worry about?
No comments:
Post a Comment