A Critical Review of “In Defense of Graffiti”
Graffiti is a topic of controversy because of differing views about its meaning and purpose. While some people see graffiti as the work of teenagers rebelling against society, others consider graffiti to be a form of artistic and political expression. In his article “In Defense of Graffiti,” Alex Boyd (2013) focuses on how graffiti can portray meaninglessness (i.e. “Nick and Gloria sparkle”) but it can also put “…a finger on the real and honest pulse of the world” (Boyd, 2013). According to Boyd, the latter type of graffiti is not given fair consideration by society, mostly due to its association with vandalism and the former type of graffiti. However, while Boyd’s observation that graffiti has the potential to make important political statements is correct, his assessment of people who do graffiti is wrong. If graffiti is a form of artistic expression, then it is open to all types of people (as opposed to only the young and impoverished). This paper argues that Boyd is correct that graffiti should be given more consideration as an art form but his idea of who makes graffiti is flawed.
In order to understand the main argument of this paper, this section provides an overview of Boyd’s argument. There are two types of graffiti: “one rambling, obscure, and sometimes offensive, the other more tangible, more political and accessible” (Boyd, 2013). While the first is associated with vandalism and…
