Graffiti Is Art Not Vandalism - 996 Words

Graffiti Is Art Not Vandalism Graffiti can be found everywhere and anywhere. It is a way for people to express themselves and be creative in a public manner. It shows how passionate and talented they can be when it comes to drawing or tagging and have it displayed as a piece of art for everyone to see. Graffiti goes way back to the ancient times and is now very well known in the modern days which makes more and more people interested and fascinated by them. It can be used in different types of ways. Many artists can either spray paint, carve, paste, or stencil them on a surface. From how we see them today they are usually images of random cartoons, big bubbly letters, vintage black and whites or inspirational quotes. Virtually anything colorful or not and big that can be easily spotted. Graffiti is more superior to be known as art than vandalism because it is a self expressing act. People need to be open minded about the images they see and look at the message behind it or else they will immediately criticize and say it is vandalizing property. It is a form of art not a crime. Going out of their way to trespass and damage property like fences, road barriers, or warning signs is considered a crime. Art wise, it attracts large crowds and shocks a few. It is a way to build a creative imagination and to be spontaneous. It really depends on how people look and feel about it. But there are artists that make street art which means that they areShow MoreRelatedIs Graffiti Art Or Vandalism? Essay1832 Words   |  8 PagesStorm Shepherd Professor Beerline Com 1110 Date Is Graffiti Art or Vandalism? Graffiti has put a major impact on the way people look at their everyday life. It was not used so much here in the United States but was used overseas. Overseas, graffiti, or street art, was used or played as a sport, just like baseball is Americas sport. There are different laws that are put over there than what there are here. They can get away with some of the things that they paint or make over there. If we tried someRead MoreGraffiti Is Vandalism Or Art?1035 Words   |  5 Pagesinternet and in a dictionary for the definition of art but in all reality, art is defined as something you see as art. To me, anything can be art. From building a sculpture or building, to even being an athlete. Being an athlete can be art because the person performs in his own way that is created by them. They have to create a form and a style to compete at the best of their abilities. There are many different types of art but when someone hears art, the first thing that comes to mind is a paintingRea d MoreGraffiti: Art or Vandalism?2306 Words   |  10 PagesWhat do people think of when they see graffiti? Is it art, vandalism, or could it be both. Graffiti is a relatively new and developing art form that presents a lot of controversy due to its involvement of illegality. A lot of people see graffiti and instantly label it as vandalism and not an art form; however, by legal definition that’s not always the case. According to Oxford Dictionaries, art is defined as â€Å"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination†¦producing works toRead MoreGraffiti: Vandalism or Art623 Words   |  2 PagesIn this discursive essay i will be showing the points for and against graffiti and whether it is considered vandalism or art. Some of the major points around this is does it matter where the graffiti is drawn or who by or is it as simple as its on a public building and no matter how artistic it looks its vandalism. Points for Graffiti being and art. There and many views on whether graffiti should be considers art. Graffiti can be acceptable in the modern day with over eighty percent of teenagersRead MoreGraffiti: Art or Vandalism Essay1911 Words   |  8 PagesGraffiti: Art or Vandalism? Sam Cowey Graffiti has been around for more than half a decade and practiced worldwide. However there is debate between whether it is a form of art or vandalism. Graffiti artists’ debate that many do not understand the reason most graffiti artist take the risk of incarceration, fines, injuries, and in some cases death to paint a wall. A graffiti artist can have the simple desire to become recognized, or to create a piece that speaks to their audience as a form ofRead MoreEssay Graffiti: Art or Vandalism?1139 Words   |  5 PagesArt: the ultimate form of self expression. But, what constitutes an art? And, who decides? These very questions plague society as it tries to decide and define the official status of graffiti--art or vandalism? Because it has found its way into art galleries and because of the community of artists who challenge and inspire each other, graffiti should be considered art and as a way to express oneself. The origin and history of graffiti is not what one might expect. Believed to have been created byRead MoreArt or Vandalism? : The acceptance of graffiti as an art form2514 Words   |  11 Pagesbelieve that Graffiti is most certainly a valid art form. The question as to whether any forms of graffiti can be considered art is a controversial area. Is it vandalism when it is placed on the side of a building or a car and art when it is on a canvas on someones wall or in a gallery- what is the difference? Graffiti, in its more complex forms, can be considered art because it clearly contains artistic elements, it communicates the artists expression to the viewer, and the traditional art communityRead MoreGraffiti: Art or Vandalism Essay examples1453 Words   |  6 Pagesis recognized as art and vandalism. The individual is often faced with uncertainty when the topic of graffiti arises. The public often portray graffiti as a destructive act towards his or her surroundings however; graffi ti can also be considered a form of self-expression. Many questions can be made pertaining to the graffiti movement, but the main question is graffiti a crime or an art? The answers lie in the complex phrase of â€Å"beauty is in the eye of the beholder†. Graffiti portrays contemporaryRead MoreGraffiti Vandalism Essay993 Words   |  4 PagesIs graffiti vandalism or art? Many people say that graffiti is art, while others disagree saying its vandalism. In my opinion, graffiti is art. This type of art can be understood in different ways and can be considered as vandalism. It really all depends on what the picture expresses to you and what you see. But everyone has their own opinions and everyone sees everything differently. While many of these artists who are extremely talented and spend most of their time on their pieces, our societyRead MoreGraffiti Is A Form Of Art1019 Words   |  5 PagesDecember 2016 Graffiti is Art Graffiti is a form of art well known in the street art. There are many forms of arts like drawing, painting, sculpture, or graffiti. Graffiti is an art used for the community to send messages as well as representing for community identity and pride through Graffiti artwork. In the book â€Å"Read Write Connect† by Kathleen Green Amy Lawler, chapter 22 Public Art talks about what graffiti art, vandalism art is, the differences between graffiti artwork and vandalism, and the

American Women s Experiences With Street Harassment

[Whistles] â€Å"Oww oww.† â€Å"Hey baby, how you doin?† â€Å"Come over here.† These words can be heard roaring over Ke$ha filled headphones, followed by cat calls that can be heard around the world. Individuals experience street harassment daily. Street harassment is any form of unwanted verbal or physical harassment sexual in nature. This paper will discuss American women s experiences with street harassment. We’ll begin with looking at: Who street harasses? Why they street harass? And lastly, the desired effects compared to actual effects of street harassment? These questions will set up a foundation to view what street harassment says about larger society and the perception versus reality of gender-based harassment. WHO IS THE HARASSER?†¦show more content†¦However, for these behaviors to be deemed as street harassment perception by the victim must be in play (e.g. If a man were to catcall a woman walking down the sidewalk and she takes that as a compliment). In other words, labeling of harassing behaviors are only notable when the label is given by the individual being victimized (Wesselmann and Kelly 2010). In Everyday Stranger Harassment and Women’s Objectification, Kimberly Fairchild and Laurie Rudman (2008) conducted a study that finds significant rates of stranger harassment in college females; with around 41% of women involved expressing feelings of â€Å"unwanted sexual attention from strangers at least once a month† (p. 353). These results suggest that if women between the ages of 18-29 [the participants age range used] are being harassed by their male counterparts on a college campus, we can infer most women will experience some form of gender-based harassment at least once in their lifetime. With this inference it’s crucial that we continue researching who is street harassing and why. WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT WHY INDIVIDUALS STREET HARASS? The nature of street harassment allows men lack of accountability for their public actions. In fact, street harassing situations don’t just occur in the â€Å"street† they include numerous places such as bars, taxis, metros, and countless other venues women literally cannot flee from. Street harassment is shaped differently from traditional

Is Multiculturalism Working free essay sample

Multiculturalism can be considered as a political philosophy that has long been greatly admired and repelled, researched and fought-over in the history of Canada. This term did not really exist until the 1960’s when the Royal Commission popularized ‘biculturalism’, having replaced the term ‘cultural pluralism’. Prior to that time, immigrants and minority groups in Canada have been severely discriminated against and unjustly treated, not unlike in many other countries. In the more recent decades, Canada has somehow been more willing than many of its global neighbours to work towards reaching such a state of society. Today, multiculturalism is something the world admires as perhaps the most celebrated characteristic of Canadian citizenship. However, there are many valid concerns emerging from the resulting realities of a supposed ‘multicultural society’. Many sociology experts, historians, politicians and journalists alike have knowledgeably critiqued the very notion of multiculturalism: Are Canadians really as ‘multicultural’ as they claim to be? And what is the true meaning of multiculturalism, the phenomenon that transformed Canada in to an ever-growing mosaic? Is this endless mosaic sustainable, paradoxical or even desirable? It has been very enlightening to discover that the term ‘multiculturalism’ has been arguably simplified and dumbed down for the knowledge and support of the general public. When faced with the rather frighteningly broad question â€Å"is multiculturalism working†, one is forced to adopt one of many different viewpoints from which to provide an answer. Multiculturalism as an ideology varies greatly from such as a policy, which is different from such as a sociological fact. An ample reason why this seemingly self-defining term is actually so slippery lies in the ever-changing definition of culture. More of this theme will be explored alongside some famous historic events. Here is a brief study of three of the many significant events throughout Canada’s history that revolved around multiculturalism. After the First World War, the Canadian federal government brought its discriminatory head tax on Chinese residents to the next level. Earlier in 1885, the original Chinese Immigration Act placed a fifty-dollar head tax on all Chinese immigrants coming to Canada in hopes of discouraging and lessening numbers. The fee was raised to a hundred dollars in 1990 and then raised further to five hundred in 1903, the equivalency of two year’s wages—a small fortune to Canadians at the time. Later, another law was passed declaring that only one Chinese immigrant could come to Canada for every fifty tons of the ship that carried them; this summed up to only ten Chinese immigrants per ship weighing five hundred tons. All of this became foreshadowing for what was inevitable to come. The Chinese Exclusion Act, also known as the new Chinese Immigration Act was passed by the Parliament of Canada on June 30, 1923. This act banned most forms of Chinese immigration, including ethnic Chinese with British nationality from entering Canada. Although immigration from most countries had been controlled or restricted in some manner, only the Chinese were so completely prohibited from immigrating. The only exceptions were merchants, diplomats and foreign students. As Dominion Day coincided with the enforcement of the Act, Chinese Canadians refused to take part in the celebration and referred to the anniversary of the Confederation as ‘Humiliation Day’. Due to the contributions of Chinese Canadians in the Second World War as well as the signing of the United Nations’ Charter of Human Rights at the end of the War, the Canadian Parliament repealed the Act on May 14, 1947. Now in the twenty-first century, approximately 200,000 immigrants come to Canada every year. On June 22, 2006 Prime Minister Stephen Harper addressed a formal apology for the Chinese head tax in the House of Commons, and paid each of the survivors a symbolic compensation of $20, 000 CAD. Was the repealing of the Chinese Exclusion Act the end of discrimination and prejudice against Chinese minorities in Canada? It is rather safe to doubt that. One must recognize that government and policy can only control the behavior of individuals to a certain extent—and their prejudices to no extent. This shameful event in Canadian history can be considered as a symbol of a deeply-rooted, unfathomable hostility for the outsider that is present, in varying degrees, in every human being. It is a tarnished trait of the human condition that would take much more than an improved political law to change. Four decades later, in July 21st 1988, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act was passed which made Canada the first national government to officially celebrate diversity within its borders. Earlier in 1971, Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau declared that Canada was to adopt a multicultural policy, in order to fully recognize and respect its diverse society in languages, religions, traditions and so on. In 1982, multiculturalism was finally recognized by Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Act ensures that every Canadian receives equal treatment from the government, and that diversity and freedom would be respected and celebrated throughout the nation. The Act also recognizes: Canada’s multicultural heritage, Aboriginal rights, English and French as the official languages while other languages may be used, equality rights regardless of colour, religion and so on, and minorities’ rights to enjoy their own cultures. Yes, setting the right policies was a crucial framework upon which a peaceful, multicultural nation was going to be built. Canada was now officially a multicultural country. However, an improved policy did not by any means simply transform Canada in to a multicultural society. It wasn’t until the last decade of the twentieth century when the majority of scholarly critics began stepping up to unravel the essence of ‘multiculturalism’ and bring many thoughtful issues in to the light. â€Å"The most curious part of the Multiculturalism Act is that it does not define multiculturalism† was a statement quoted by author Phil Ryan in his insightful novel analysis, Multicultiphobia. An early chapter revealed that back in 1971 when the Act was passed, the term culture generally meant either folklore or high art. It was only later that the term evolved and expanded in to what it is now: an anthropological term encompassing a person’s entire life. Furthermore, as briefly mentioned earlier, political multiculturalism was worlds away from sociological multiculturalism—the one that actually revolves around the intrapersonal behaviors of and between Canadian minorities and majorities. Regarding Canada’s state of sociological multiculturalism: it seems that diversity is working in the minds of the ‘majorities’, but not necessarily among the minority groups themselves. Critics point out that multiculturalism has, in essence, promoted self-segregation among cultural minorities and in turn created ethnic enclaves in major cities such as Toronto and Vancouver. The individualization of ethnicities has ironically created the image of a â€Å"default Canadian†. Immigrants have become â€Å"house guests† in the conscience of many people â€Å"who were there first†, resulting in both special funds and deliberately special treatment which in turn creates resentment among the majorities. The cultural mosaic is argued to have reduced most minority cultures to colourful displays, festivals and savories in the eyes of the majority. This is not to say to that multiculturalism is to blame. However it does raise some doubts: was this suppos ed to happen? Is this the emerging result of multiculturalism gone astray? On August 4th, 2005, Michaelle Jean was announced Governor General of Canada by Prime Minister Paul Martin, approved by Queen Elizabeth II. At the time of presenting to the public Canada’s new governor general, Jean was regarded with mixed opinions but inarguably a fair amount of surprise. She was a Haitian refugee, coming from an ancestry of slavery, who fled to Montreal with her family to escape the oppressive regime of Francois Duvalier in 1968. She later received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Italian and Hispanic languages as well as literature in the University of Montreal, and is now fluent in Spanish, Italian, Haitian Creole, Portuguese aside from English and French. After receiving numerous university degrees, Jean worked as a journalist, filmmaker and broadcaster for Radio-Canada and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in 1988, as well as a volunteer to assist victims of domestic violence. She became the first person of Caribbean descent to be seen on French Canadian television news. Jean married French-born Canadian filmmaker Jean-Daniel Lafond and has chosen to adopt a little girl from her homeland Jacmel. Although the implications for her initial support of Quebec sovereignty and dual citizenship had caused doubt about her loyalties, Jean denied separatist accusations and renounced her French citizenship. Jean has strong visions about freedom and dissolution of the ‘Two Solitudes’ of traditional French and English Canada—and onwards between peoples of all groups—in order to achieve true Canadian unity. She also encouraged Canadian involvement in their communities and sought to reach out to all Canadians regardless of background, especially marginalized youths. Her captivating spirit and passion was reflected in The Globe and Mail: â€Å"Here is this beautiful young Canadian of Haitian birth, with a smile that makes you catch your breath, with a bemused older husband by her side, and a daughter who literally personifies our future, and you look at them and think: Yes this is our great achievement, this is the Canada that Canada wants to be, this is the Can ada that will ultimately make way for different cultural identities.† Prime Minister Paul Martin also made a statement at the presenting of Michaelle Jean at Rideau Hall: â€Å"She does represent the story of Canada. She represents what we are, who we are, and what we want to be. And I think this is important for Canadians. I also think it’s important for those outside of our borders to understand the nature of our country.† Michaelle Jean was the very first Black governor general in Canada—as well as the second after Adrienne Clarkson to not only have neither a political or military background, but also be a visible minority breaking the tradition of Canadian-born governor generals. Her appointment has become a symbolic moment in Canada’s Black history as well as a milestone in all of Canada’s multicultural history. Paul Martin believed that Jean’s life journey symbolized the story of all Canadians. In Quebec’s Haitian community, Jean was admired as a role model and overall a bright ray of hope for what their future may become. In another sense, the life and character of Jean embodies the rich multiculturalism that Canada is still working to embrace and become. Among these three major events in Canada’s journey to become a diverse nation, the 1988 Canadian Multiculturalism Act proves to be the most defining moment by paving the road for many social revolutions to come. If it was not for the spark of political change initiated by Pierre Elliot Trudeau four decades ago, it would be quite frightening to imagine what life in Canada would have been like today. As for whether ‘social multiculturalism’ is working in Canada, it would be safe to say that this nation has indeed come a long way and outperformed most of its global neighbours, but still has plenty to work on. Instead of ignorantly dismissing the views of multiculturalism critics as hateful and racist, it would be wise and extremely beneficial if both experts and general public join in the discussion. How far should multiculturalism be allowed to expand in light of preserving a nation â€Å"unified through diversity†? Here is one of the most impactful suggestions made by Phil Ryan at the conclusion of his book. Instead of solely promoting a shattered cultural mosaic in which Canada is losing itself, the nation should begin looking towards the other side of the spec trum and finding a balance. After all, multiculturalism is only one of the countless efforts and policies meant to create a good society. If a method used to help further a goal is forgetting the goal itself, something needs to be done. Phil Ryan suggests that in actuality, the good ‘multicultural society’ is not a big mosaic that does not even necessarily form a bigger picture. Instead, like in politics, one must recognize that there is a spectrum: one on side, melting pot, and on the other, mosaic. Canadians have always juxtaposed the terms ‘mosaic’ and ‘melting pot’ permanently labeling one as ideal and the other as not. However, after looking in to both methods of integration, it is apparent that both have their own pros and cons, and an extreme veering towards either side is not ultimately sustainable or desirable. A just and humane multiculturalism must both nourish the types of differences that are compatible and strengthen the shared re cognition of certain common grounds. So is Canada’s multiculturalism working? So far, yes. But it’s slowly veering in a harmful direction. This country is currently trying to sustain a phenomenon based on many bottomless assumptions in a constantly shifting society. Now is the time for Canadians to pause and be honest with themselves, and each other. As mature and responsible nationwide neighbours, Canadians of each and every background need to come together to communicate their ideas—to seek to truly understand and connect with one another. With unified bravery, persistence and humility, one day Canada might just possibly bring a whole new authentic multiculturalism to the world stage.