GRAFFITI

[Trien Chieu]

Should we get tougher with graffiti?

Graffiti refers to images or lettering scratched, scrawled, painted or marked on property. Although it's against the law, it has a popular following, and in many Canadian/US cities graffiti is on the rise.

Some people insist we must get tougher with those who produce graffiti by increasing law enforcement and by introducing stiffer penalties. They say graffiti is an eyesore and is costly to clean up.

Others insist that most graffiti writers (or taggers, as they are often called) are not criminals and their work adds to the uniqueness and cultural interest of a city. The get-tough approach is a waste of time and resources, they argue.

What do you think?

---------------------`-------------------

While I acknowledge some graffiti artists have talent as I myself unable to produce the pictures/art like the way they have done, but I don't think they have the right to create the picture on other people properties. They can do it on their personal properties, not others. I am all for stiffer penalties.

[yittz]

I am against graffiti too. From a personal point of view:
- most graffiti are an eyesore
- some of them are pretty yes, but don't affect me any more positively than a blank canvas
- the clean up costs are paid by my tax money
- the cost of the equipment/paint can be better used elsewhere, and if it's from welfare money, then again it's coming from my tax money

[Guo Xiang]

Should we get tougher with graffiti?

Graffiti refers to images or lettering scratched, scrawled, painted or marked on property. Although it's against the law, it has a popular following, and in many Canadian/US cities graffiti is on the rise.

Some people insist we must get tougher with those who produce graffiti by increasing law enforcement and by introducing stiffer penalties. They say graffiti is an eyesore and is costly to clean up.

Others insist that most graffiti writers (or taggers, as they are often called) are not criminals and their work adds to the uniqueness and cultural interest of a city. The get-tough approach is a waste of time and resources, they argue.

What do you think?

---------------------`-------------------

While I acknowledge some graffiti artists have talent as I myself unable to produce the pictures/art like the way they have done, but I don't think they have the right to create the picture on other people properties. They can do it on their personal properties, not others. I am all for stiffer penalties.

My answer?

Whip them.

[Han Solo]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dGItCBQRp4...77_468x420.jpg


Art or graffiti?

Han Solo

[Guo Xiang]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dGItCBQRp4...77_468x420.jpg


Art or graffiti?

Han Solo

Oh this type I don't mind! Looks cool!

[kidd]

It should depend on the quality of the graffiti. The penalty should be reverse-proportional to the quality. The higher the quality, the lesser the penalty. The uglier the graffiti the stiffer the penalty.

[Trien Chieu]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dGItCBQRp4...77_468x420.jpg


Art or graffiti?

Han Solo

$this->handle_bbcode_img_match('http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dGItCBQRp48/Tb2kDDPlW6I/AAAAAAAAABE/RRBAnqwcX-k/s1600/article-1024884-0185F25600000578-477_468x420.jpg')

While I acknowledge the picture is beautiful, something I am unable to do but I still against it as they do it in the public property. If that person wants to show his talent, he should go to art school, not by damaging other people property.

I am against graffiti too. From a personal point of view:
- most graffiti are an eyesore
- some of them are pretty yes, but don't affect me any more positively than a blank canvas
- the clean up costs are paid by my tax money
- the cost of the equipment/paint can be better used elsewhere, and if it's from welfare money, then again it's coming from my tax money

Agree. I would like to add that I wouldn't want pictures on my property regardless of how beautiful they are.

It should depend on the quality of the graffiti. The penalty should be reverse-proportional to the quality. The higher the quality, the lesser the penalty. The uglier the graffiti the stiffer the penalty.

Beautiful is in the eye of the beholder, who are you to judge? The penalty should be based on the size of the picture, the larger the picture the harsher the penalty, not the quality.

[mi do ri]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dGItCBQRp4...77_468x420.jpg


Art or graffiti?

Han Solo

Banksy is awesome and I don't mind having an original Banksy's work on my property (of course, with my consent). My opinion is that graffiti is a form of art.

[Ian Liew]

Graffiti is vandalism. It may be tastefully done at times, and the end result might even seem desirable to some, but it is just vandalism. It's like someone walked up to my car and spray painted it to look like Lightning McQueen.

There should be designated spots for people to express themselves though - like in KL, the walls to the side of the river near the Pasar Seni LRT station is full of graffiti. Not sure if it's legal, but the whole stretch is painted, and it does look nice. It's also a wall where people don't normally walk past or see, but can see clearly from the distance and safety of the LRT train. This is also a factor, as graffiti makes people feel unsafe, that someone can vandalise the walls which you are walking past without anyone stopping them could mean that anything can happen to you on that same street and nobody would care.

[Grundle]

This is the work of a guy who lives around here

$this->handle_bbcode_img_match('http://www.samuraigraphix.com/media/graff_battle2009/scribe.jpg')

I think it is great art, and his murals are all over town, and they are protected. I don't think his work is graffiti though...

However, there is another side to graffiti which is the whole gang side which I hate. People who "tag" to claim territory are thugs and need to be punished harshly.