Can Graffiti Ever Be Considered Art?
What is the speaker saying?
"Graffiti: Art or Vandalism?" by Greg Eickmier is about the conflict and discussion on whether graffiti is considered art or vandalism.
How are they saying it?
Eickmier uses several techniques such as parallelism, imagery, logical appeal, understatements, and tone to express that graffiti has negative and positives aspects to it.
1st example: "In 1947 the famous abstract expressionist painter Jackson Pollok (1912-1956) made his first “drip” painting. This was a significant shift in style and technique from other types of artwork up until that time." This fits the definition of parallelism because it's showing a resemblance of the same subject from past history and connects it with modern day times.
2nd example: "Taggers use easily concealable tools such as paint sticks, industrial ink markers and even scratching or etching devices to deface everything from courthouse elevators to truck stop bathroom mirrors." This fits the definition of imagery because by reading this quote from the article, you can easily picture things being said to help understand the story.
3rd example: "Other types of Graffiti still within our definition are large colorful mural-like works that take many hours to create." This fits the definition of logical appeal because the quote states that some pieces of graffiti can take up hours to create, and this might have been said to persuade the reader that art isn't bad if time was taken to make it look good.
4th example: "Graffiti is generally viewed as having a negative impact within communities where it is prevalent" This can be seen as an understatement because usually almost every neighborhood will be viewed as less "civilized" if there is graffiti involved in that area. Lastly, the
5th example: "Public works such as murals, sculptures, statues, political stencils, religious iconography, advertisements and a multitude of other visual entities could all be subject to discussion." This fits the definition of tone because the author's tone goes from talking about small forms of graffiti such as tagging, and switches to talk about murals and public pieces of artwork to take into consideration when being decided between graffiti or art in public.
Why do they make these choices?
Eickmier makes these choices to develop and achieve the purpose that graffiti should be considered art, but it also depends on how people view it. The techniques used in the article help draw out the fact that graffiti is often being viewed as a bad thing, but all it is really is art; just like any other paintings on walls. The way people view graffiti and their own personal opinions hold back the fact that it's really no different than any obscure piece of artwork.