Graffiti *

I would like to express my point of view about the polemical discussion related to the graffiti question. People discuss a lot if graffiti is art or not, if we should celebrate or condemn it and if graffiti artists should be sent to prison. And I can see who is from the press is a bit confused to touch this subject.

Well, firstly, I’m not an expert in the subject, but I deem extremely important to establish the difference between an artwork and a vandalism mark. It is not a simple task, because art doesn't show a mere draw or phrase. An artistic graffiti is something aesthetically coherent, able to condense messages that conduct our sense to a combination of signs, enabling more complex interpretations. Other than this, it quite possibly is vandalism, also with its own language.

Secondly, I also have no doubt that we ought to always defend the freedom of speech when we ask ourselves abaut celebrating or condemning the graffiti practice. Furthermore, graffiti is a street art, and as such, it's culturally linked to the metropolitan identity in some places.

Lastly, I feel very strongly that in vandalism cases, in which the space of other is depredated, the offender should receive a warning by governmental authorities. I'm referring to some reprimand exemplar, to serve as lesson, like be the hair painted with the own spray can. And only if the vandal relapse, he should be sent to prison.

To sum up, the first step is identify if the suppose graffiti is really art, to after that judge the graffiti maker and think about the providences. And at least the more beautiful works must be preserved as every artwork.

* English writing task written in April 1st, 2013, valid as an activity of the Upper Intermediate I level of an English course.