Response to Luis's blog about graffiti

Here's a quote from Luis's blog:

Some people might say that urban art or “graffiti” is bad for the community and for people. I do not think that urban art is bad for any reason. Urban art is not necessarily destruction of property, I think of it as more of coloring or decorating the city. Most of the property being painted is not even being used. I agree that urban art should not be done on important places such as religious places, cemeteries, and so on. In urban art, there are some rules.

        Luis is right about this controlled version of graffiti in that it is not violent and abusive as long as the people who are drawing follow the rules. Graffiti on unused property is legit because no one is using it so why waste it. If the graffiti harms valuable property then it becomes illegal because it would fit into the category of vandalism. Vandalism is not considered urban art because it does not decorate the city. Clearly, there is a difference between urban art and graffiti.
        The rules separating urban art and graffiti are important. That’s what makes them two totally separate things. It is explained not in this quote, but later in the essay that the writer can not draw on cars, religious places, houses, memorials, murals and of course schools. All of these are property belonging to organizations, the government, and regular civilians. They would not like it if they received a nasty surprise in the form of ink and color.
        I would just like to add to the rules that obscene pictures should not be allowed if you are an urban artist. It isn’t really decorating the city if there are nasty drawings on the walls. People and tourists visiting would think the city is full of bad people. Kids would be influenced as they grow up because they would see these everyday. Adding this rule will ensure strictness and still maintain fun for artists. I see Luis’s view on the subject and agree this stereotype does exist.