how to end an essay about graffiti

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Art

Essay Samples on Graffiti

Expressive art: is graffiti art or vandalism.

 Throughout time graffiti has received both overwhelming support and intense backlash. Some view it as a form of expressive art while others consider it a complete destruction of property. However, despite the amount of differentiation, charisma and personality graffiti can bring into cities, it is...

• Visual Arts

Why Is Graffiti Are Not Vandalism

Why is graffiti art not vandalism? According to the Mural Arts Philadelphia website, the village’s first legitimate effort to eradicate graffiti started with the form of the Anti-Graffiti Network in the 1980s. Some people assay that its vandalism, and some assay that its artifice. Park...

Societal Views On Graffiti: Street Art Or Vandalism

When you think of graffiti what’s the first thing that comes to mind? Vandalism or street art? Most would say vandalism, but what makes the distinction between the two? The intention of the piece. There’s a difference between defiling the back of a building and...

Graffiti And Street Art As An Act Of Vandalism

It is difficult to apply a single definition to what is considered Art. Whether it can or should be defined has been constantly debated. “The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy....

Exit Through the Gift Shop: Popularising the Art of Graffiti

I believe that posting a form repeatedly is a form of artistic expression in the beginning. Once people relate it to something or make a meaning out of it, it might become a brand or a logo. Making the art is as equally as important...

• Exit Through The Gift Shop

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

• 100% unique papers
• 3 hrs deadline option

Analysis of the Concept of Street Art in Martin Irvine's Article: The Work On The Street: Street Art and Visual Culture

In the article, The Work On The Street: Street Art and Visual Culture, by Martin Irvine, he gives a better interpretation of the concept of street art, while distinguishing major aspects of visual culture. To start off, Irvine provides a definition of street art noting,...

Street Art in Modern Culture: Presenting Own Message to the Wide Audience

Street art is visual art created in public locations, usually unsanctioned artwork executed outside of the context of traditional art venues. Other terms for this type of art include 'independent public art', 'post-graffiti', and 'neo-graffiti', and is closely related with guerrilla art. Common forms and...

Reasons Why Graffiti Can't Be Considered a Form of Art

Graffiti has always been a issue of controversy in our society as there are endless debates happening all over the world whether or not it should be categorized as a form of art. Drawing, painting, printing, design, sculpture, printmaking and photography all encompass the category...

• Controversial Issue

Graffiti: A Form of Art or Crime

Graffiti is a highly controversial form of art which is considered illegal in several places, punishable by law whereas on the other hand some people term it as an innovative way of expressing creativity, freedom of speech and political awakening. This art indeed is a...

Graffiti Art in the Philippines: Reflection of Social Issues in the Philippines

In the Philippines, people are known to be artistic and creative in different aspects of life. Even at the earliest time, these characteristics were reflected in the different remnants of the existence of humankind. Angono Petroglyphs was known as one of the earliest artworks in...

• Philippines
• Social Problems

Jean-Michel Basquiat's Neo-Expressionism Art

Jean-Michel Basquiat is famously known as the gritty on the New York street became known from the 'Punk'. The street-smart graffiti artist has successively covered the international art gallery route starting his journey from the dark lane of downtown. In a small number of fast-paced...

• Jean-Michel Basquiat

Life and Artist Way of Jean-Michel Basquiat

A high school dropout, a panhandler, not a real person, but a legend. From sleeping on park benches, to becoming a featured artist of renowned art galleries, Jean Michel Basquiat managed to achieve more in his short, 8-year long career, than most artists do in...

Unique Art Style of Jean-Michel Basquiat

Jean Michel Basquiat was an American artist he also happened to be one of the top-selling American artists. Some of his paintings sold for prices of to $57.5 million and they were all unique and they had some way of portraying current issues. Jean is...

Graffiti: The Discussion on Whether It Is an Art or an Act of Vandalism

Graffiti, is it art? Or Vandalism? In most countries painting property without the property owner's permission is considered vandalism, which is a punishable crime, yet at the same time, many cities are put on the map because of their street art. These cities, like Buenos...

Vandalism and Vandalistic Photography in the Work of Martha Cooper and Jürgen Große

Google defines the act of vandalism as an “action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property.” Photography and its influencers have changed the idea of vandalistic photography over many years. This idea is vividly seen through, such artists as Martha Cooper,...

• Photography

Best topics on Graffiti

1. Expressive Art: Is Graffiti Art Or Vandalism

2. Why Is Graffiti Are Not Vandalism

3. Societal Views On Graffiti: Street Art Or Vandalism

4. Graffiti And Street Art As An Act Of Vandalism

5. Exit Through the Gift Shop: Popularising the Art of Graffiti

6. Analysis of the Concept of Street Art in Martin Irvine’s Article: The Work On The Street: Street Art and Visual Culture

7. Street Art in Modern Culture: Presenting Own Message to the Wide Audience

8. Reasons Why Graffiti Can’t Be Considered a Form of Art

9. Graffiti: A Form of Art or Crime

10. Graffiti Art in the Philippines: Reflection of Social Issues in the Philippines

11. Jean-Michel Basquiat’s Neo-Expressionism Art

12. Life and Artist Way of Jean-Michel Basquiat

13. Unique Art Style of Jean-Michel Basquiat

14. Graffiti: The Discussion on Whether It Is an Art or an Act of Vandalism

15. Vandalism and Vandalistic Photography in the Work of Martha Cooper and Jürgen Große

• Frida Kahlo
• Ansel Adams
• Impressionism
• Metropolitan Museum of Art
• Pablo Picasso
• Andy Warhol
• Michelangelo

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to main navigation
• Awards & Honors
• News by topic
• News archives
• E-Newsletter
• Tuesday Newsday
• UCSC Magazine
• Administrative Messages

Home / 2021 / September / The writing on the wall: exploring the cultural value of graffiti and street art

The writing on the wall: exploring the cultural value of graffiti and street art

Doctoral candidate’s research interprets graffiti’s deeper meaning among Latinx and Black urban subcultures in Los Angeles

September 14, 2021

By Allison Arteaga Soergel

Ismael Illescas grew up admiring the graffiti around his neighborhood in Los Angeles. He had migrated to the city with his mother and brother from Ecuador in the 1990s as part of a large Latin American diaspora. In his urban environment, he found himself surrounded by beautiful, cryptic messages. They were written on walls and scrawled daringly across billboards. Little by little, he began to understand the meanings behind some of these messages. And, eventually, he started writing back. 

Illescas became a graffiti writer himself, for a time. He has since given it up, but he never lost his initial sense of curiosity and admiration. In fact, now, as a doctoral candidate in Latin American and Latino Studies, his dissertation research has taken him back to Los Angeles, where he gathered insights from current and former graffiti writers about how their work connects with concepts of art, identity, culture, and space. 

For those who create it, graffiti is an expression of identity and an outlet for creativity, social connection, and achievement, according to Illescas’s research. Some of the most popular graffiti yards in Los Angeles are abandoned spaces in communities of color that neither the economy nor the city has been willing to invest in, he says. But graffiti allows Black and Latino young men to transform these areas into spaces of congregation and empowerment. 

“In a city where these youth are marginalised, ostracized, and invisibilized, graffiti is a way for them to become visible,” Illescas said. “They feel that the system is against them, and upward social mobility is limited for them, so putting their names up around the city is a way for them to achieve respect from their peers and assert their dignity, and that doesn’t come easily from other places and institutions in society.”

Graffiti also offers what Illescas calls an “illicit cartography,” meaning that it can be read like a cultural map of the city. Graffiti styles in East Los Angeles, for example, reflect Mexican-American artistic influence that began with Pachuco counterculture in the 1940s. Rich graffiti writing traditions emerged, including “placas,” or tags that list a writer’s stylized signature, and “barrio calligraphy,” which blends rolling scripts with Old English lettering. In the 1980s, those traditions then incorporated colorful, whimsical East Coast influences.

“The result is that Los Angeles has a really unique graffiti style,” Illescas said. “Although outsiders might not necessarily notice it, you can easily see the Mexican-American artistic influence in the aesthetics, and that has become associated with Latinx urban identities.”

Graffiti is a multiracial and multi-ethnic subculture, and Illescas says his research aims to recognize the specific contributions of Black and Latinx communities. He’s also critically examining the subculture’s hypermasculinity and how that may limit its transformative potential.  And he’s particularly interested in shedding light on how race may affect public perceptions of graffiti.

Depending on the context, graffiti can either be publicly admired as “street art”—and valued up to millions of dollars—or it can be criminalized at levels ranging up to felony charges and years of jail time. In Los Angeles, a city which many researchers consider to be highly racially segregated, Black and Latinx communities, like South Central Los Angeles and East Los Angeles, are the places where graffiti is most likely to be severely criminalized and lumped together with gang activity, Illescas says.

Meanwhile, Illescas says street art is more likely to be recognized as such within arts districts, where officially sanctioned “beautification” projects use public art to attract more business and new residents, which can contribute to gentrification issues. And some of the most famous street artists are actually white men, like Banksy or Shepard Fairey, who have each attained international recognition for the artistic value of their illegal works. 

“This is where systemic racism occurs,” Illescas said. “You have some people who are more prone to being criminalized and severely punished for a very similar act, and that punishment falls mainly on young Black and Latino men.”

For these reasons, Illescas has found that many graffiti writers of color have mixed feelings about the growing public appreciation for street art. 

“On the one hand, it’s a capitalistic appropriation of transgressive graffiti into commercialized street art,” Illescas said. “But it also ties into the efforts of graffiti writers who have been pushing for years to decriminalize their art and demonstrate its artistic and social value and the types of knowledge that it brings with it.”

Street art has, in fact, already brought opportunities for some veteran Black and Latino graffiti writers, who told Illescas they had recently been commissioned for their art or had found jobs as tour guides in arts districts. But each of these artists got their start creating illegal graffiti tags. Illescas believes that decriminalization will ultimately require transforming public appreciation of street art into a deeper understanding of the expressive value of other forms of graffiti. And he hopes his research might aid in that process.  

“The graffiti that we see up in the streets may seem like an insignificant tag or scribble to some people, but there’s a lot of meaning behind it,” he said. “There needs to be a recognition that graffiti is actually a visual representation of someone’s identity, and it’s also potentially their starting point to a very meaningful artistic career.” 

University News

• University News Home
• Monthly Newsletter

Other News & Events

• Campus Calendars

• UCSC Chancellor
• Press Releases
• Contacts for Reporters
• Send us an email
• Report an accessibility barrier
• Land Acknowledgment
• Accreditation

Last modified: September 16, 2021 195.158.225.230

Analysis of Cultural Phenomenon of Graffiti Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Causing troubles, gives voices to the youth, aesthetic appeal of graffiti.

Bibliography

Many of the great works of art were underestimated by the contemporaries of the artists. Though the artistic value of the graffiti remains questionable for most cultural experts, certain samples of spray-painting may be regarded the works of art in the context of the hip-hop culture.

Causing a lot of troubles and material damage to the authorities, graffiti is considered to be a property crime punishable by up to one year in jail in Seattle and up to three years in Singapore, for instance. For replacing the spray-paintings a lot of funds as well as human resources are used. Notwithstanding the ethical code of the artists, the windows and walls in the public spaces are often used as canvases for graffiti. Considering only the material damage issue of the graffiti phenomenon, it may be treated as an act of vandalism.

By the way, spray-painting in the public areas, in my opinion, is mostly meant to contradict the generally accepted norms and expresses the protest of the young generation, looking for ways of self-realization and socialization. Assessing the artistic value of these masterpieces is problematic. But some artists consciously choose the unused dessert areas for their self-expression and it causes less damage than painting in public places, changing the city landscapes and amusing the occasional observers. Taking into consideration the individual style of every artist and interesting motifs used in the graffiti, this phenomenon is to be treated as one of the trends of contemporary hip-hop culture.

Becoming a worldwide trend, paint-spraying increased its significance in the cultural context. Numerous websites unite artists all over the world, sharing their experiences, demonstrating samples of the wall masterpieces. Being prohibited by law and painted mostly during the hours of darkness, this kind of self-expression creates the atmosphere of romanticism and gives inspiration to the artists. I consider graffiti to be a cultural phenomenon due to its artistic value and on the condition that that opposition to the generally accepted norms is not an end in itself while creating separate paintings, they may be regarded the works of art.

Graffiti gives voices to the youth and often represents the young people’s attitude to the moral norms and the picture of the life of this community. Taking into consideration the widespread trend and wide range of artists, it is important to differentiate between the gang artists and the tagging, between acts of vandalism while painting in public places and painting in the desert or unused areas and especially on the canvas. Occurred as the way of self-expression for the loafing about teenagers, the frames of the trend were changed and now it is problematic to give the well-defined estimation of the phenomenon.

Mohammad Qarni, a young artist, explains his liking for graffiti: “It was a way of showing off and of proving ourselves” (Ambah 2). Ed Hardy, another young man illuminates the sociological issue of the creation: “Graffiti gave cachet and made it easier to meet girls” (Ambah 2). I think, that the main reason for graffiti to be so widespread is the excitement arousing from the circumstances of its creation. Realizing that it is prohibited by law but will be inevitably observed by numerous occasional passersby inspire the artists. In other words, graffiti became the forbidden fruit that is sweetest.

Not every inscription on the wall may be regarded a graffiti, a good graffiti can be estimated according to its aesthetic appeal to the viewers. There are hardly any strict norms of aesthetics that can be observed in graffiti; most of the samples have an individual style of the creator, though certain features, such as bubble letters, for example, are met in numerous paintings. Different tests may be used as the basis for the painting, such as political statements, different slogans, the name, or the nickname of the artist.

The latter case is named tagging, writing one’s name on the walls of the city has psychological roots, tagging is aimed at creating as many similar paintings as it is possible to become recognized by the viewers. Successful paint-spraying requires thorough preparation. Not to mention the necessity of hiding while painting, it needs to be well-organized and take not too much time, though some of the elements of the inscription are not easy at all. That is why the young artists start withdrawing their names on a sheet of paper, choosing the style for a would-be graffiti. A work of art differs from the act of vandalism in its aesthetic value and requires the skills and perspiration of the artists.

The way to recognition graffiti as a cultural phenomenon was not an easy one. One of the first significant events may be regarded the documentary film Style Wars by Tony Silver and Henry Chalfant, which was made in New York in 1983. The producers were the entrepreneurs, raising the question of the aesthetic value of the paintings, which were regarded acts of vandalism, for the first time.

It was the first time that the names of the graffiti artists, were mentioned. Not so long ago one of the mentioned film artists, Daze became a pioneer in exhibiting his canvases in Singapore and other cities. The paintings replaced from the city walls to the canvases remain the same style and spirit but lack the romanticism of the wall creativity. It is said that being legalized graffiti may be deprived of its original charm. But I consider the paintings on the canvases to be the next stage in the development of graffiti, a more civilized one, while the question of vandalism is not to be raised anymore.

Graffiti is a significant phenomenon of hip-hop culture. Originated as the way for the self-expression of the teenagers, it became widespread and more civilized, while its aesthetic value, changing the landscapes of the cities, was appreciated by the public opinion.

Ambah, Faiza. Graffiti Give Voice to Saudi Youth. The Seattle Times . 2007: 1 – 3.

• The Hip-Hop Genre Origin and Influence
• Aspects of Graffiti as Art Therapy
• Analyzing Graffiti as a Subculture
• Art and Literature in African-americans Diaspora
• Ornament and Crime: Economic Aspects
• Semiology Usefulness in Analyzing Works of Art or Design
• Colonialism in the Work of Some Artists
• Judgment and Social Interaction in “The Lady Justice”
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, December 19). Analysis of Cultural Phenomenon of Graffiti. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cultural-phenomenon-of-graffiti/

"Analysis of Cultural Phenomenon of Graffiti." IvyPanda , 19 Dec. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/cultural-phenomenon-of-graffiti/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Analysis of Cultural Phenomenon of Graffiti'. 19 December.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Analysis of Cultural Phenomenon of Graffiti." December 19, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cultural-phenomenon-of-graffiti/.

1. IvyPanda . "Analysis of Cultural Phenomenon of Graffiti." December 19, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cultural-phenomenon-of-graffiti/.

IvyPanda . "Analysis of Cultural Phenomenon of Graffiti." December 19, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cultural-phenomenon-of-graffiti/.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• How to conclude an essay | Interactive example

How to Conclude an Essay | Interactive Example

Published on January 24, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on July 23, 2023.

The conclusion is the final paragraph of your essay . A strong conclusion aims to:

• Tie together the essay’s main points
• Show why your argument matters
• Leave the reader with a strong impression

Your conclusion should give a sense of closure and completion to your argument, but also show what new questions or possibilities it has opened up.

This conclusion is taken from our annotated essay example , which discusses the history of the Braille system. Hover over each part to see why it’s effective.

Braille paved the way for dramatic cultural changes in the way blind people were treated and the opportunities available to them. Louis Braille’s innovation was to reimagine existing reading systems from a blind perspective, and the success of this invention required sighted teachers to adapt to their students’ reality instead of the other way around. In this sense, Braille helped drive broader social changes in the status of blindness. New accessibility tools provide practical advantages to those who need them, but they can also change the perspectives and attitudes of those who do not.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Step 1: return to your thesis, step 2: review your main points, step 3: show why it matters, what shouldn’t go in the conclusion, more examples of essay conclusions, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about writing an essay conclusion.

To begin your conclusion, signal that the essay is coming to an end by returning to your overall argument.

Don’t just repeat your thesis statement —instead, try to rephrase your argument in a way that shows how it has been developed since the introduction.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Next, remind the reader of the main points that you used to support your argument.

Avoid simply summarizing each paragraph or repeating each point in order; try to bring your points together in a way that makes the connections between them clear. The conclusion is your final chance to show how all the paragraphs of your essay add up to a coherent whole.

To wrap up your conclusion, zoom out to a broader view of the topic and consider the implications of your argument. For example:

• Does it contribute a new understanding of your topic?
• Does it raise new questions for future study?
• Does it lead to practical suggestions or predictions?
• Can it be applied to different contexts?
• Can it be connected to a broader debate or theme?

Whatever your essay is about, the conclusion should aim to emphasize the significance of your argument, whether that’s within your academic subject or in the wider world.

Try to end with a strong, decisive sentence, leaving the reader with a lingering sense of interest in your topic.

The easiest way to improve your conclusion is to eliminate these common mistakes.

Don’t include new evidence

Any evidence or analysis that is essential to supporting your thesis statement should appear in the main body of the essay.

The conclusion might include minor pieces of new information—for example, a sentence or two discussing broader implications, or a quotation that nicely summarizes your central point. But it shouldn’t introduce any major new sources or ideas that need further explanation to understand.

Don’t use “concluding phrases”

Avoid using obvious stock phrases to tell the reader what you’re doing:

• “In conclusion…”
• “To sum up…”

These phrases aren’t forbidden, but they can make your writing sound weak. By returning to your main argument, it will quickly become clear that you are concluding the essay—you shouldn’t have to spell it out.

Don’t undermine your argument

Avoid using apologetic phrases that sound uncertain or confused:

• “This is just one approach among many.”
• “There are good arguments on both sides of this issue.”
• “There is no clear answer to this problem.”

Even if your essay has explored different points of view, your own position should be clear. There may be many possible approaches to the topic, but you want to leave the reader convinced that yours is the best one!

• Argumentative
• Literary analysis

This conclusion is taken from an argumentative essay about the internet’s impact on education. It acknowledges the opposing arguments while taking a clear, decisive position.

The internet has had a major positive impact on the world of education; occasional pitfalls aside, its value is evident in numerous applications. The future of teaching lies in the possibilities the internet opens up for communication, research, and interactivity. As the popularity of distance learning shows, students value the flexibility and accessibility offered by digital education, and educators should fully embrace these advantages. The internet’s dangers, real and imaginary, have been documented exhaustively by skeptics, but the internet is here to stay; it is time to focus seriously on its potential for good.

This conclusion is taken from a short expository essay that explains the invention of the printing press and its effects on European society. It focuses on giving a clear, concise overview of what was covered in the essay.

The invention of the printing press was important not only in terms of its immediate cultural and economic effects, but also in terms of its major impact on politics and religion across Europe. In the century following the invention of the printing press, the relatively stationary intellectual atmosphere of the Middle Ages gave way to the social upheavals of the Reformation and the Renaissance. A single technological innovation had contributed to the total reshaping of the continent.

This conclusion is taken from a literary analysis essay about Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein . It summarizes what the essay’s analysis achieved and emphasizes its originality.

By tracing the depiction of Frankenstein through the novel’s three volumes, I have demonstrated how the narrative structure shifts our perception of the character. While the Frankenstein of the first volume is depicted as having innocent intentions, the second and third volumes—first in the creature’s accusatory voice, and then in his own voice—increasingly undermine him, causing him to appear alternately ridiculous and vindictive. Far from the one-dimensional villain he is often taken to be, the character of Frankenstein is compelling because of the dynamic narrative frame in which he is placed. In this frame, Frankenstein’s narrative self-presentation responds to the images of him we see from others’ perspectives. This conclusion sheds new light on the novel, foregrounding Shelley’s unique layering of narrative perspectives and its importance for the depiction of character.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

Your essay’s conclusion should contain:

• A rephrased version of your overall thesis
• A brief review of the key points you made in the main body
• An indication of why your argument matters

The conclusion may also reflect on the broader implications of your argument, showing how your ideas could applied to other contexts or debates.

For a stronger conclusion paragraph, avoid including:

• Important evidence or analysis that wasn’t mentioned in the main body
• Generic concluding phrases (e.g. “In conclusion…”)
• Weak statements that undermine your argument (e.g. “There are good points on both sides of this issue.”)

Your conclusion should leave the reader with a strong, decisive impression of your work.

The conclusion paragraph of an essay is usually shorter than the introduction . As a rule, it shouldn’t take up more than 10–15% of the text.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, July 23). How to Conclude an Essay | Interactive Example. Scribbr. Retrieved July 10, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/conclusion/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write an essay introduction | 4 steps & examples, how to write a thesis statement | 4 steps & examples, example of a great essay | explanations, tips & tricks, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Write an Argumentative Essay

4-minute read

• 30th April 2022

An argumentative essay is a structured, compelling piece of writing where an author clearly defines their stance on a specific topic. This is a very popular style of writing assigned to students at schools, colleges, and universities. Learn the steps to researching, structuring, and writing an effective argumentative essay below.

Requirements of an Argumentative Essay

To effectively achieve its purpose, an argumentative essay must contain:

●  A concise thesis statement that introduces readers to the central argument of the essay

●  A clear, logical, argument that engages readers

●  Ample research and evidence that supports your argument

Approaches to Use in Your Argumentative Essay

1.   classical.

●  Clearly present the central argument.

●  Outline your opinion.

●  Provide enough evidence to support your theory.

2.   Toulmin

●  State your claim.

●  Supply the evidence for your stance.

●  Explain how these findings support the argument.

●  Include and discuss any limitations of your belief.

3.   Rogerian

●  Explain the opposing stance of your argument.

●  Discuss the problems with adopting this viewpoint.

●  Offer your position on the matter.

●  Provide reasons for why yours is the more beneficial stance.

●  Include a potential compromise for the topic at hand.

Tips for Writing a Well-Written Argumentative Essay

●  Introduce your topic in a bold, direct, and engaging manner to captivate your readers and encourage them to keep reading.

●  Provide sufficient evidence to justify your argument and convince readers to adopt this point of view.

●  Consider, include, and fairly present all sides of the topic.

●  Structure your argument in a clear, logical manner that helps your readers to understand your thought process.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

●  Discuss any counterarguments that might be posed.

●  Use persuasive writing that’s appropriate for your target audience and motivates them to agree with you.

Steps to Write an Argumentative Essay

Follow these basic steps to write a powerful and meaningful argumentative essay :

Step 1: Choose a topic that you’re passionate about

If you’ve already been given a topic to write about, pick a stance that resonates deeply with you. This will shine through in your writing, make the research process easier, and positively influence the outcome of your argument.

Step 2: Conduct ample research to prove the validity of your argument

To write an emotive argumentative essay , finding enough research to support your theory is a must. You’ll need solid evidence to convince readers to agree with your take on the matter. You’ll also need to logically organize the research so that it naturally convinces readers of your viewpoint and leaves no room for questioning.

Step 3: Follow a simple, easy-to-follow structure and compile your essay

A good structure to ensure a well-written and effective argumentative essay includes:

Introduction

●  Introduce your topic.

●  Offer background information on the claim.

●  Discuss the evidence you’ll present to support your argument.

●  State your thesis statement, a one-to-two sentence summary of your claim.

●  This is the section where you’ll develop and expand on your argument.

●  It should be split into three or four coherent paragraphs, with each one presenting its own idea.

●  Start each paragraph with a topic sentence that indicates why readers should adopt your belief or stance.

●  Include your research, statistics, citations, and other supporting evidence.

●  Discuss opposing viewpoints and why they’re invalid.

●  This part typically consists of one paragraph.

●  Summarize your research and the findings that were presented.

●  Emphasize your initial thesis statement.

●  Persuade readers to agree with your stance.

We certainly hope that you feel inspired to use these tips when writing your next argumentative essay . And, if you’re currently elbow-deep in writing one, consider submitting a free sample to us once it’s completed. Our expert team of editors can help ensure that it’s concise, error-free, and effective!

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Essay on Graffiti

Students are often asked to write an essay on Graffiti in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Graffiti

What is graffiti.

Graffiti is writing or drawings made on walls or other surfaces, usually without permission. It can be simple written words or elaborate paintings. Some people see it as art, while others view it as vandalism. This form of expression has been around for centuries, with examples dating back to ancient civilizations.

Types of Graffiti

There are many types of graffiti. Tagging is the simplest, involving the writer’s name or symbol. More complex styles include pieces, which are large, colorful works. Some artists use graffiti to spread social or political messages.

Graffiti and the Law

In many places, creating graffiti is illegal because it can damage property. When done without consent, it is considered vandalism. But some cities offer legal walls where artists can showcase their work without breaking the law.

Graffiti as Art

Graffiti has gained recognition as a form of art. Museums and galleries sometimes display graffiti as part of exhibitions. Many graffiti artists have become famous, blurring the lines between street art and traditional art.

Graffiti’s Impact

Graffiti can brighten dull spaces and give voice to those who feel unheard. It influences fashion, music, and culture. Despite its controversy, graffiti remains a powerful tool for self-expression and creativity in urban environments.

250 Words Essay on Graffiti

Graffiti is a type of art that is often seen on walls, bridges, and trains. It is made by writing or drawing directly on surfaces in public places. While some people think of it as a way to express themselves, others see it as damage or unwanted marks on property.

History of Graffiti

The practice of graffiti has been around for a very long time. Even ancient people in Egypt and Rome wrote on walls. In modern times, graffiti became more popular in the 1970s in New York City. It started with names or “tags” and grew into large and colorful pictures.

Many artists use graffiti to create beautiful and meaningful pieces. These can be very big and bright, and they often share a message or a story. Some famous artists, like Banksy, have made graffiti that is worth a lot of money and is shown in galleries.

In many places, making graffiti on someone else’s property without permission is against the law. This is because it can be hard to remove and may not be what the owner wants. But, some cities have special areas where artists can legally make graffiti.

In conclusion, graffiti is a form of art that can be both creative and controversial. While it lets artists share their thoughts and talents, it can also lead to legal issues. Understanding both sides of graffiti is important in appreciating its place in our world.

500 Words Essay on Graffiti

There are different kinds of graffiti. ‘Tags’ are like an artist’s signature; they are simple and quick to make. ‘Throw-ups’ are larger and might have two or three colors. They are usually bubble letters or simple shapes. The most complex type is a ‘piece’, short for masterpiece. These are big, detailed, and colorful. They take a lot of time and skill to make.

In many places, it’s against the law to make graffiti on someone else’s property without their permission. This is because it can damage the property and it might cost a lot of money to clean up. Some people see graffiti as vandalism, which is when someone breaks or ruins something on purpose. Yet, in some cities, there are walls or areas where artists can make graffiti legally.

A lot of people argue about whether graffiti is truly art. Some say it’s just messing up places and not real art. But others think it’s a way for artists who might not have another way to share their talent. In fact, some graffiti artists have become famous and now show their work in galleries or get paid to make murals. Murals are big pictures painted on walls, and they can make a dull place look really exciting.

Graffiti’s Impact on Society

Graffiti can change how a place looks and feels. If there’s a lot of it in one area, it might make the place look uncared for. But sometimes, it adds beauty to a boring wall or tells a story about the people who live there. Graffiti can also give a voice to people who feel they’re not being heard. It can be a way to protest or to bring attention to important issues.

Graffiti Around the World

All over the world, cities have different kinds of graffiti. In some places, it’s a big part of the culture and attracts tourists. For example, in cities like Berlin, Melbourne, and New York, people go on tours just to see the graffiti. Some cities even have festivals where artists come to make new pieces, and everyone can watch and enjoy the process.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Advertisement

Criminal but Beautiful: A Study on Graffiti and the Role of Value Judgments and Context in Perceiving Disorder

• Open access
• Published: 10 September 2015
• Volume 22 , pages 107–125, ( 2016 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Gabry Vanderveen 1 &
• Gwen van Eijk 2  

54k Accesses

50 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Annoying paintings everywhere, [it] should be forbidden, and the perpetrators [should] clean everything with a toothbrush. It is pollution. There is an exception, what happens in cities, a boring wall is embellished with a nice painting made by experienced professional artists.

Introduction

The citation above, of a participant in our study who describes his first image of graffiti that comes to mind, summarizes our argument: public opinions on disorder (graffiti, in this case) may vary considerably, not only between people but people themselves make different judgments, depending on what they see in which context. Indeed, studies prove that ‘graffiti has been called everything from urban blight to artistic expression’ (Gomez 1993 : 634). Lombard ( 2012 ) calls graffiti ‘art crimes’ because it is criminal and artistic at the same time, which makes it also difficult to distinguish ‘artists’ from ‘criminals’. Even graffiti writers recognize that graffiti, while for them in the first place art, in some contexts is damaging or inappropriate (Rowe and Hutton 2012 ). According to Brighenti, graffiti is an ‘interstitial practice’: a practice about which different actors hold different conceptions, depending on how it is related to other practices such as ‘art and design (as aesthetic work), criminal law (as vandalism crime), politics (as a message of resistance and liberation), and market (as merchandisable product)’ ( 2010 : 316). A response to an interstitial practice always comes in a ‘yes, but’ form: graffiti is crime, or art — but it is always also something else (ibid.). Therefore, White ( 2000 : 253) argues, we should not condemn, nor celebrate graffiti, without considering ‘the ambiguities inherent in its various manifestations’.

Graffiti comes in many forms, varying from tag graffiti to artistic pieces and stencil art, and from illegal sprayings on public or private property to murals on legally designated walls. Our perspective is that there is no clear-cut distinction between graffiti and street art and that definitions based on form (e.g. tag, mural) cross legal definitions — the works of the (in)famous writer Banksy illustrate this point (Banksy’s work is often illegal but his work has also been sold and has featured in exhibitions, for example alongside Andy Warhol). Graffiti can be problematic, but not all graffiti is. The question as to when and why which forms of graffiti are perceived as criminal and by whom, remains an open question.

Yet, authorities, and many criminologists as well, tend to see graffiti as an unambiguous signal of disorder or even crime. Informed by the broken windows theory, many local governments seek to prevent and remove graffiti (e.g. Snyder 2006 ; Young 2010 ; Kramer 2010a ; Tempfli 2012 ; Uittenbogaard and Ceccato 2014 ). Studies in the tradition of the broken windows theory and social disorganization theory seem to assume that the public more or less agrees on what phenomena are ‘disorder’, and graffiti would be one of such phenomena. In this line of argument, ‘disorder’ would trigger fear (Ross and Jang 2000 ; Xu et al. 2005 ), undermine collective efficacy (Sampson et al. 1997 ; Kleinhans and Bolt 2013 ) and invite crime (Wilson and Kelling 1982 ; Wagers et al. 2008 ).

Our study engages with and critiques this line of argument in two ways. First, we observe that there has been much less attention for diverging (and conflicting) interpretations among the public. Many studies point at the mismatch of interpretations of graffiti as either art or crime between writers on the one hand and authorities, (supposedly) reflecting the concerns of the public, on the other hand (Whitford 1991 ; Gomez 1993 ; Halsey and Young 2006 ; Millie 2008 ; Snyder 2006 ; Dickinson 2008 ; Edwards 2009 ; Lombards 2012 ; McAuliffe 2012 ; Young 2012 ; Haworth et al. 2013 ). Indeed, we would expect that the perspective of graffiti writers differs from the perspective of the public (Brighenti 2010 ), as the underlying meaning and subcultural codes of graffiti are unknown to the average street user (Ferrell 2009 ; Young 2012 ). It is assumed that the uninformed public, as well as authorities and media, cannot distinguish one form of graffiti from another, thus interpreting all graffiti as evidence of increased gang activity, young people’s disrespect for authority or a threat to property values and neighbourhood safety (Ferrell 2009 ). However, in our study we show that opinions on disorder also vary significantly among the public. Based on qualitative and quantitative data we empirically unravel the different viewpoints on graffiti of the public in the Netherlands. Here we build on Millie’s ( 2011 ) work on value judgments in relation to criminalization.

Second, we elaborate insights on the role of context by examining judgments of graffiti in various micro places . Quantitative studies have generally examined context by focusing on the role of neighbourhood characteristics such as crime levels, population composition and stigma (e.g. Sampson and Raudenbush 1999 ; Franzini et al. 2008 ). We take a different approach and build on knowledge from mostly qualitative studies on context-related expectation and norms (e.g. Dixon et al. 2006 ; Cresswell 1996 ; Millie 2008 ). These studies draw our attention to the ways in which norms and expectations are tied to specific places, which together construct the meaning of places and of elements, such as graffiti, in those places. Using quantitative data, we investigate whether these ideas hold among a larger population (i.e. the Dutch public).

Studying responses to graffiti has broader relevance for research and policies on disorder, as graffiti is part of a larger ‘grey area’ of deviant behaviour that is not obviously criminal or harmful but nonetheless often labelled as ‘disorder’ (e.g. loitering, skateboarding, public drinking, noise). For example, following Jane Jacobs’ ( 1961 ) argument about the role of ‘eyes on the street’ in multifunctional neighbourhoods, people’s presence in the streets could contribute to safe street life and attract more people, but currently there is a tendency to see people hanging around in urban spaces as ‘social disorder’ (e.g. Ruggiero 2010 ; Binken and Blokland 2012 ). The same goes for public drinking: often banned in public space, but also tolerated when it contributes to the ‘aesthetic of the night-time economy’ (Dixon et al. 2006 ; Millie 2008 ). Particularly in the context of zero tolerance policies towards disorder, anti-social behaviour and incivilities, it is important to understand why and when behaviour is something that needs to be prevented, removed or punished. Critics of zero tolerance policies warn that in public space only certain behaviours from certain people are tolerated, while everything that deviates from the ‘mainstream’ is removed or excluded (e.g. Mitchell 2003 ; Beckett and Herbert 2008 ; MacLeod and Johnstone 2012 ). Diverging perspectives on disorder, graffiti included, lead to confusion about appropriate policy responses: if offensiveness is subjective, how can authorities discern what is acceptable and what is not? And to whom should authorities listen: to the majority, to those with most political or economic clout, or to more marginal groups who seem to struggle to enact their right to the city (Millie 2011 ; Kramer 2010a )? We return to these questions in the discussion. Before presenting our data, methods and results, we briefly discuss current trends in graffiti policy and criminological research on graffiti.

Graffiti as Art and/or Crime: Policy and Criminology

Even though ‘tough on graffiti’ approaches still dominate policies in countries such as Australia, the Netherlands, the UK and the US, the idea that the public responds in different ways to graffiti seems to be trickling down into policies, at least in some countries and cities. Repressive policies are concerned with preventing and removing graffiti, for example through applying special coatings and quickly removing all graffiti (e.g. Tempfli 2012 ; Uittenbogaard and Ceccato 2014 ). However, authorities have limited resources and thus need to prioritize which graffiti to remove first, which requires them to distinguish different types of graffiti (and for instance target offensive graffiti first, see Taylor et al. 2010 ; Vanderveen and Jelsma 2012 ). Moreover, local and national authorities do seem to distinguish between graffiti as a form of art and graffiti as crime, through mixing preventative and punitive measures with offering designated spaces for authorized graffiti (Kramer 2010b ; Lombard 2012 ; McAuliffe 2012 , 2013 ; Young 2010 ; Tempfli 2012 ). In some cities, graffiti (i.e. murals or pieces) is even used to prevent graffiti (Craw et al. 2006 ). Unwanted graffiti is in this way prevented and graffiti writers are offered alternatives. A bifurcated approach like this builds upon the idea that not all graffiti is received in the same way.

More generally, the way in which policy makers and citizens think about cities and a liveable urban environment is changing. Recent urban development seems to influence viewpoints on graffiti. Particularly the ‘creative city’ discourse offers opportunities to rethink the value of the creative practices of graffiti writers (McAuliffe 2012 ). Since Florida’s ( 2004 ) ‘recipe’ for successful cities (the 3 T’s in short: Technology, Tolerance and Talent — the latter T is measured by the share of people working in the creative sector), urban governments have promoted creativity in all forms and places to make their cities attractive. Indeed, in some places, graffiti in the form of murals is desired by policy makers to beautify locations and attract tourists (e.g. Millie 2011 ; Koster and Randall 2005 ; Zukin and Braslow 2011 ; McAuliffe 2012 ). However, city marketing may also result in a ‘get tough on graffiti approach’, as was the case in Melbourne in response to the run-up to the Commonwealth Games to be hosted in Melbourne in March 2006 (Young 2010 ). In London, authorities first painted over graffiti that mocked the Olympic Games and corporate sponsors, but recently commissioned graffiti as part of the Canals Project for East London’s waterways (Wainwright 2013 ). Such developments do not necessarily demonstrate a greater leniency towards graffiti. In the words of street artist Mau Mau: ‘when it suits them, they [the Council] choose who paints where’ (ibid.). So even when we may find that authorities are rethinking the meaning of graffiti, this is not necessarily applied to all graffiti in all places, which underscores our point that we need to consider responses to graffiti in relation to its form and context.

Given the ambiguity in how authorities deal with graffiti, we think it is striking that the dominant approach in criminological research on disorder views graffiti unambiguously as a social problem: something threatening that must be prevented and dealt with because it would cause fear and (more) crime. This idea is most common in studies following the ecological tradition (social disorganization theory) or the broken windows theory. Within ecological research, graffiti is often taken as an example of physical disorder (although it may also be seen as social disorder, see Skogan 1990 ), similar to other signs of physical disorder such as boarded-up houses, rubbish on the street and defaced bus stops. For example, in Wyant’s ( 2008 ) study on perceived incivilities and fear of crime, respondents were asked to indicate on a 4-point scale whether they thought various ‘neighbourhood problems’ capturing ‘perceived incivilities’ were a ‘serious problem’ in their neighbourhood, one of which is ‘graffiti on sidewalks and walls’ (see also, with varying questions or items: Ross and Jang 2000 ; Markowitz et al. 2001 ; Foster et al. 2010 ; Paquet et al. 2010 ; Gainey et al. 2011 ; Kleinhans and Bolt 2013 ).

Moreover, the broken windows theory suggests that graffiti and other signs of disorder in neighbourhoods cause not only fear but also crime, because fear would weaken social control and thus signal opportunities for crime to motivated offenders (Wilson and Kelling 1982 ; Wagers et al. 2008 ). A rare test of the assumed causal link between perceiving disorder and crime is the study of Keizer and colleagues ( 2008a ) which suggests that when people see norm transgression they are more likely to overstep a rule themselves. In one of the six field experiments, they demonstrate that in an environment with tag graffiti on a wall, people are more likely to litter, compared to a clean environment. However, Keizer and colleagues tested only for tag graffiti. They did consider different types of graffiti for their research design and decided on ‘simple tags as the more elaborated “pieces” might be perceived as art instead of norm violations’ (Keizer et al. 2008b ). However, while Keizer and colleagues acknowledge that different types of graffiti are valued differently, they still seem to assume that tag graffiti (as opposed to pieces) is always a norm violation, thus disregarding the variety of meanings, also to the public, of graffiti. While the broken windows thesis is popular among policy makers around the globe, the idea that there is a causal link between neighbourhood disorder and neighbourhood crime has been criticized (e.g. Sampson and Raudenbush 1999 ; Harcourt and Ludwig 2006 ). It is indeed questionable when we consider that disorder is an ambiguous phenomenon. However, even studies that do distinguish different graffiti types (e.g. Sampson and Raudenbush 1999 : tags, political and gang graffiti; Foster et al. 2010 : on public property and on private property; Perkins and Taylor 1996 : graffiti on residential and non-residential property) usually combine the different types with items such as vandalism and litter to construct a scale measuring ‘physical disorder’. Thus, all graffiti, regardless of type and location, is taken as disorder.

However, there are indications that the public perceives and judges graffiti in different ways, too, which contrast the assumption that ‘the public’ never accepts graffiti. First, studies based on small, selective groups of respondents have suggested that the type of graffiti matters for whether people find it offensive and want it removed, or whether it invokes fear (Taylor et al. 2010 ; Austin and Sanders 2007 ; Campbell 2008 ). Furthermore, types of disorder may evoke different value judgments, as Millie ( 2011 ) has suggested. On what grounds do people reject or accept graffiti? And, in what types of environments do people judge graffiti negatively or positively? We now turn to these questions.

Data and Measurements

The research for this article is based on a study commissioned and financed by the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice and the Dutch Centre for Crime Prevention and Safety (CCV). They wanted insight into the public’s opinion on graffiti: what do people find offensive and what should authorities do about it? This study gave us the opportunity to examine the various ways in which people define graffiti and the role of context in relation to offensiveness (Vanderveen and Jelsma 2011 ). In this article we elaborate several themes that we think are relevant for further research and policy decisions.

Participants

Our study measures the evaluation of different types of graffiti in different contexts among the Dutch public. The participants in this study (N = 881) are a random sample of the TNS NIPO access panel, which is a major Dutch sample source that includes approximately 200,000 people who can be invited via the internet to participate in research studies. Participants receive a small compensation for their time. The collection of data took place in September 2010. Around 50 per cent of the panel members that were invited by TNS NIPO took part via Computer Assisted Self Interviewing. Participants could fill in the survey from their computers at home, which took on average ten minutes. Age varies from 12 to 88 years ( m  = 44.6; SD  = 18.3), and 428 participants (49 per cent) are male and 453 (51 per cent) are female. All participants completed the entire survey. The data are weighed in terms of gender, age, education, family size and region, and are representative of the Dutch population.

Measurements

The survey was based on several qualitative and quantitative pilot studies (conducted by the first author) which indicated that two aspects are important for whether people find graffiti offensive or not: location and graffiti type (Vanderveen and Jelsma 2011 ). For the current study we operationalized these aspects more systematically to test these first findings with a representative sample of the public.

The survey consisted of three parts which resulted in qualitative and quantitative data. The first part resulted in qualitative data. Participants were asked to describe in words the first ‘image’ of graffiti that occurred to them. They could type whatever they wanted: words, sentences and stories. The following parts resulted in quantitative data. The second part of the survey consisted of five general statements on graffiti for which participants indicated on a 7-point Likert scale to what extent they agreed (1) or disagreed (7). Statements included: ‘In general I am not disturbed by graffiti’ (recoded), ‘The presence of graffiti is a sign of crime’, ‘I feel safer in an environment where there is no graffiti’, ‘Graffiti is an art form’ (recoded) and ‘Graffiti is a common problem’. The statements together measure the general attitude regarding graffiti (α = .75); a higher score on the ‘general attitude scale’ indicates a more negative opinion about graffiti.

The third part of the survey used photos and/or short written descriptions of concrete examples of graffiti. Footnote 1 These examples were selected by the researchers based on findings from several pilot studies that included sorting tasks, interviews and a survey. Footnote 2 The 18 examples of graffiti varied for type (tags: little scribbles; throw ups: words in fat letters; pieces: colourful images; see Fig.  1 ) and location/context (a shop front; a house front; a skate park; a tunnel; a green space; an image without location). A (translated) list of the 18 examples is provided in the Appendix (photos can be viewed online in Vanderveen and Jelsma 2011 ). No information was provided about whether the graffiti examples were legal or illegal, as participants would usually not know this in reality either. Participants were asked to evaluate the 18 examples of graffiti in two ways. First, they were asked to indicate their evaluation on a 7-point scale on three items: ‘This piece of graffiti is a form of disorder’, ‘This piece of graffiti is a form of crime’ and ‘This piece of graffiti should be removed as quickly as possible’. The sum score of the three items measures the extent to which that specific example of graffiti is perceived as disorder; a higher score on the ‘perceived disorder scale’ indicates more offensiveness (reliabilities vary from α = .89 to α = .97). Second, participants were asked to indicate which graffiti should be removed first. Participants were shown three sets of six photos and/or descriptions presenting the same type of graffiti in six different locations. This procedure was repeated for each of the graffiti types (tags, throw ups and pieces).

Example of piece, tag and throw up

We conducted a content analysis of the qualitative data that resulted from the open-ended question in the first part of the survey (which asked respondent to write down their first image of graffiti). Content analysis is a method that is used to systematically interpret large numbers of words and texts and can be used to code open-ended survey questions (Weber 1990 ). The central idea is that ‘the many words of texts can be classified into much fewer content categories’ (ibid.: 12). For this study we coded all responses to the open question in order to categorize their responses. We coded the data based on two content categories: valence (neutral, negative, positive and/or mixed) and value judgment (economic, aesthetic, prudential and/or moral; based on Millie 2011 , see below). The examples of responses for each of the content categories that we offer in the results section are meant to illustrate the categories but also to give the reader insight into our interpretation of the data. The coding process makes it possible to quantify qualitative data and enabled us to analyse how valence and value judgment are related by using descriptive statistics. The quantitative data generated in parts two and three of the survey were analysed by using descriptive statistics and variance analyses.

First Images and Value Judgments

The survey started with an open question asking participants what their first image was when thinking about graffiti. A small number of participants (9 per cent) was unable or unwilling to give a description of an initial image or idea of graffiti. Those who did provide their first ideas, varied greatly in their descriptions, especially in terms of specificity and approval or rejection of graffiti. A first reading of the data shows that many descriptions (whether neutral, positive or negative) refer to places: stations, tunnels, along highways, bridges, rail roads, fences, walls, trains, subways, doors — all places that are known to be popular spots for graffiti writers (e.g. Ferrell and Weide 2010 ). A first step of the content analysis was to categorize the descriptions in terms of valence, by sorting them based on whether they made a positive or negative statement, or gave a mixed or neutral description. More than half of the initial ideas on graffiti (52 per cent, n = 459) are neutral in tone. A total of 39 per cent (n = 341) of the participants give a description that involves an evaluative component: negative (17 per cent), positive (12 per cent) or both negative and positive (10 per cent).

A second step of our content analysis was to categorize the descriptions based on value judgments. Here we draw on Millie’s ( 2011 ) distinction of four different value judgments: moral, prudential, economic and aesthetic judgments. Millie argues that whether something is perceived as disorder or crime may be related to reasons other than legal or moral reasons and that it is essential to unravel the various value judgments for understanding why something is either condemned or condoned. Moral judgments refer to the good and the bad, right and wrong, which includes reference to legal norms. Prudential judgments concern one’s personal quality of life, whether something is enjoyable or makes life good for one. Economic judgments involve decisions on economic contributions. They are judgments about whether the behaviour, person or object, ‘makes an acceptable economic contribution to society’ or, in contrast, is costly (ibid.: 7). Aesthetic judgment is related to what is considered (or accepted as) beautiful or ugly, or as artistic, in that specific context. Millie here also refers to ‘everyday aesthetics’ related to ‘everyday objects, events and encounters’ (ibid.: 8). For example, ‘a degree of drunkenness may be tolerated (…) as it fits in with an aesthetic of the night-time economy’ (ibid.). Similarly, one type of graffiti may be accepted and even welcomed (e.g. pieces or murals) while others are seen as vandalism. For example, Millie shows that authorities in Toronto rejected graffiti based on economic judgments (as ‘vandalism’ would deter tourists), while they celebrated it based on aesthetic judgments (murals can beautify certain locations).

Together, the 341 participants made 440 value judgments. In line with what Millie ( 2011 ) found, value judgments are not mutually exclusive: some of the responses included more than one value judgment. We coded all value judgments separately (five per cent (n = 21) of the judgments could not be categorized). We then examined the relationship between valence and value judgment. Table 1 shows that an overwhelming majority of the positive evaluations involve aesthetic judgments, while this holds for a much smaller majority of the negative evaluations. Negative evaluations more often involve moral judgments.

Below we demonstrate our findings in more detail by offering examples of each of the value judgments. The positive descriptions based on an aesthetical value judgment mostly connect graffiti to beauty, art, form and colour, for example:

A beautifully painted wall in Asten. Robot-like figures, letters. Pretty drawings. Complete works of art on overpasses and the tracks. Beautiful art.

Positive prudential judgments involve the idea that something contributes to the quality of life of a person, for example, ‘I enjoyed [graffiti] because it was beautifully designed’ or ‘I see few graffiti in the neighbourhood, I miss art in the neighbourhood’. A couple of responses involved a positive moral judgment, for example: ‘[…] nothing wrong with it if it happens in places where it is allowed and then I generally find it nicely done’. None of the positive responses involve an economic judgment.

In the negative judgments, graffiti is associated for example with back streets, offensiveness, deterioration, defacement, impoverishment and anti-social behaviour and called untidy, messy, awful, a load of rubbish. Negative value judgments are also mostly related to aesthetics, but a substantial share refers to moral considerations and, to a lesser extent, prudential and economic judgments (see Table 1 ). Negative aesthetic judgments point at graffiti’s ugliness, amateurish nature or untidiness:

Mess on all public walls. Often no talent. Ugly and untidy. Dirty, scribbles on walls in the centre. Visual pollution.

Negative moral judgments involve referrals to the law and norms of behaviour, such as descriptions of graffiti as vandalism, referrals to private property, anti-social behaviour, foul language and racism:

Vandalism! I see graffiti everywhere and it annoys me because it is put on everything where it doesn’t belong. Keep off of other people’s stuff. Graffiti is mess created by stupid people who destroy other people’s properties by leaving their “tags”. Painting by youngsters without having permission to do so.

Negative prudential judgments involve statements such as ‘It annoys me’ and ‘Deterioration of the city’. We counted four economic judgments, all negative, which include descriptions of graffiti as ‘destroying’ private property.

A third category of descriptions offers both positive and negative judgments about graffiti. We can divide this category into two subcategories: those who make only aesthetic judgments and those who make an aesthetic and a moral judgment. Responses in the first subcategory for example say that graffiti can be beautiful or ugly, sometimes referring to type of graffiti or its location:

Cool!! Tag (not so nice), cool drawings, many colours, sometimes makes buildings or spaces nicer. Some graffiti is really artfully made, but most is just messing with a spray can. I find it (sometimes) beautiful. […] Not when it is mess on a wall with letters. That I call pollution.

In the second subcategory aesthetic and moral judgments are combined, which demonstrates respondents’ ambiguous position towards graffiti, also sometimes referring to type of graffiti or its location:

Graffiti can be really ugly but also really beautiful. Under a bridge it can brighten things up, but on houses or buildings I think it’s a shame (vandalism). […] On wanted and unwanted places, sometimes nice, sometimes ugly. Some graffiti is just artwork except racist slogans. Vandalism, but there are also nice works of art, depends on where it is sprayed.

Here we already see that context matters: it is not just the aesthetic quality of the graffiti itself but also its location. We return to this theme below. The quantitative data supports the wide variety in evaluations. The average score on the general attitude scale was neutral ( M  = 4.05, SD  = 1.21). However, answers to the individual items of the scale show participants’ ambiguity on the topic (see Table 2 ). For none of the statements there is an overwhelming majority towards disagreeing or agreeing. In addition, there is no clear tendency towards agreeing with either negative statements or positive statements. For example, the proportion of participants who agrees to being disturbed by graffiti is almost as large as the proportion of participants that disagrees. The share of respondents that is not disturbed by graffiti is about equal to the share that says they feel safer in an environment without graffiti. Finally, more than half of the participants agree that graffiti is an art form, while an equal share agrees with the next statement that graffiti is a common problem. The average neutral evaluation thus masks an enormous variety and contradictions in attitudes on graffiti. Footnote 3

Evaluations of Types of Graffiti

The open question suggests that participants distinguish between types of graffiti, for example by referring to tags or letters and pieces or paintings. Several studies confirm that the graffiti type matters for whether people find it offensive and want it removed, or whether graffiti invokes fear. Taylor et al. ( 2010 ) identified eight different types of graffiti based on the (textual) content of the graffiti. They made a distinction between, for example, the ‘memorial’ (words or statements that memorialize a deceased person) and the ‘obscene’ (words or statements that have an explicit, offensive sexual connotation). Their respondents, all directly involved with the removal and/or reporting of graffiti, indicated that all obscene, hate and threatening graffiti should be removed first. Austin and Sanders ( 2007 ) conducted a pilot study among undergraduate students using photography to examine the relation between graffiti and perceived safety. They found that four graffiti types (gang, hip hop style, message and murals) correspond to different levels of perceived safety: gang related graffiti evoked the lowest level of safety and murals the highest level. Based on in-depth interviews in focus groups, Campbell ( 2008 ) reports a similar finding, with tags being judged most negatively, followed by throw-ups and most positive judgment associated with pieces.

In our study we examined whether the findings of these small studies hold up in a large-scale systematic and quantitative study among a representative sample of the Dutch public. Responses to the 18 photos, which varied for type and location, shows that evaluations of specific examples of graffiti are more negative than the general attitudes suggest. Furthermore, the score on the perceived disorder scale differs significantly for different graffiti types: tags were evaluated most negatively, followed by throw ups, while pieces were evaluated least negative (Table 3 ). The ordering of graffiti types is generally the same for all six locations: regardless of the location, tags are perceived most negatively and pieces most positively (results not shown).

To further investigate the variety in evaluations, we analysed the standard deviation (SD) and kurtosis. We can take these measures as indications of consensus, or lack thereof, as they measure the distribution of values around the mean. The measures show that tags are not only evaluated most negatively: there is also most consensus among participants about their negative character. For pieces, on the other hand, opinions are on average neutral, but there is less consensus, which means that a larger group of participants tends to the negative and another group to the positive end of the scale. These patterns support the idea (also suggested by our qualitative data) that tags are more readily associated with illegality, which is more likely to be interpreted as negative, while pieces may also be related to art, in which case its quality depends on aesthetic judgments which can be either positive or negative depending on personal taste or artistic value. In other words, types of graffiti may evoke different value judgments (Millie 2011 ): pieces may be rejected mostly when they are of low aesthetic quality, while tags will be rejected mostly based on legal or behavioural norms.

The Role of Context: Graffiti in Micro Places

Norm transgression seems to be inherent to the practice of graffiti writing. That authorities frame graffiti as ‘out of place’ (Cresswell 1996 ) has ‘ensured that successive generations of predominantly young men have taken up graffiti as a risk-laden behaviour’ through which they can accrue fame and respect among peers (McAuliffe 2012 : 189). Nonetheless, as we have demonstrated, not all graffiti is considered to be offensive or a violation of norms to the same extent. We now turn to the question how context matters in how graffiti is received. The notion of context can be conceptualized in several ways. Many criminological studies focus on the role of neighbourhood characteristics in interpreting (signals of) behaviour (e.g. Sampson and Raudenbush 1999 ; Sampson 2012 ; Franzini et al. 2008 ). Some incidents and forms of disorder may act as ‘signal disorder’ and work as a warning signal for a greater danger, while others are just ‘background “noise” to everyday life’ (Innes 2005 : 192). Innes ( 2004 ) suggests that graffiti in an otherwise nice neighbourhood is more conspicuous than graffiti in an area where there is a variety of visible problems. On the other hand, in a (gentrifying) neighbourhood that is characterized as ‘edgy’, graffiti may be valued by those who appreciate such edginess (see e.g. Ferrell and Weide 2010 ; Dovey et al. 2012 ). Thus, graffiti in one neighbourhood is not the same as the same type of graffiti in another neighbourhood.

We take a different approach. Instead of focusing on the neighbourhood, we study the smaller setting. Several criminologists have underlined the need to study smaller geographical units such as street segments, (face) blocks and (micro) places (e.g. Eck and Weisburd 1995 ; Hipp 2007 ; Smith et al. 2000 ; Weisburd et al. 2012 ). Hipp ( 2007 ) suggests that it is likely that social and physical disorder are geographically localized: disorder in one block may not affect perceptions in the next. Cultural geographers have taken this further and investigate how meanings and practices are tied up with spaces (e.g. Sibley 1995 ; Cresswell 1996 ). Particularly, meanings attributed to places involve behavioural norms, thus leading to the ‘construction of normative places where it is possible to be either “in place” or “out of place”’ (Cresswell 2009 : 5). Such insights build on the work of Mary Douglas ( 1966 ) on the interpretation of dirt as signal of danger. Millie ( 2011 ) suggests that place and time matter particularly for ‘everyday aesthetics’. For example, certain behaviours or groups that are ‘untidy’ may be removed from tourist centres, business districts, shopping malls and exclusive neighbourhoods (Millie 2008 , 2011 ). In public space, certain behaviour, such as street drinking, may be seen as ‘“out of place” and consequently as morally offensive behaviour’ (Dixon et al. 2006 : 201). What is regarded to be ‘in place’ and what is ‘out of place’ depends on the behavioural expectations which vary among different contexts; outside we expect different behaviour than inside, for example (cf. Douglas 1966 ; see also Sibley 1995 ; Cresswell 1996 ). These studies point our attention to specific norms and expectations that are tied to specific places, but also suggests that we see graffiti as an element that, in connection with other elements, constructs the meaning of places.

An example of a context in which graffiti is ‘out of place’ is graffiti on a house front. Indeed, the photo showing graffiti on a house front is judged most negatively. Also, most participants seem to agree on this (greatest consensus indicated by the SD, second most consensus indicated by Kurtosis, see Table 3 ). This corresponds with what other scholars have observed: authorities seem to condemn graffiti mostly because it would ‘destroy’ or ‘devalue’ private property (Campbell 2008 ; Millie 2011 ).

Graffiti in a tunnel is ranked second (with average consensus) and thus evaluated more negatively than graffiti on a shop front. Here, we suggest, it is the sense of danger inherent to the location that reinforces the negative interpretation of graffiti. The photo shows a dark hole where one would enter the tunnel. It is possible that participants evaluate the tunnel in itself as a dangerous place, as concealment, shades and darkness in (urban and natural) environments often seem to invoke fear as they signify uncertainty (e.g. Blöbaum and Hunecke 2005 ). In this context, graffiti adds to danger and then is more likely to be interpreted negatively.

These two ways in which context plays a role may come together in evaluating graffiti in a skate park. This context is judged least negatively, but shows least consensus as indicated both by the SD and Kurtosis. That is, participants hold opposing opinions. On the one hand, we may expect that graffiti in a skate park is more readily accepted because it is seen as ‘in place’: graffiti is what one would expect in a skate park (Nolan 2003 ; cf. Cresswell 2009 ). For a group of participants this probably holds true and therefore they find it little problematic. On the other hand, skate parks themselves may be problematic locations, associated with young males (often in themselves problematic in public space, see e.g. Binken and Blokland 2012 ) and unruly behaviour (Karsten and Pel 2000 ; Nolan 2003 ; Chiu 2009 ). Participants who tend to the negative pole of the scale thus may evaluate this graffiti negatively because their evaluation of the whole setting is negative. If they find skate parks problematic, they are probably likely to find the graffiti in that context problematic, seeing the graffiti as a sign of problems that confirms to them the problems of skate parks.

Finally, we asked participants to prioritize graffiti for removal: we confronted them with six descriptions and/or photos, all showing the same type of graffiti but in six different locations and asked them which should be removed first. For the throw ups and pieces, the graffiti that is ‘out of place’ or applied in ‘dangerous places’ is chosen most often. For the throw ups, the top three consisted of the graffiti on the house front (40 per cent), the shop front (30 per cent) and in the tunnel (23 per cent). For the pieces, participants prioritized removal in the tunnel (54 per cent) and from the house front (25 per cent). The tunnel may have also been prioritized most often because of its negative content (the throw up spells ‘jerkhater’). We should note here that while our study presented different graffiti types in different locations, our study did not systematically vary type and graffiti (i.e. show the exact same graffiti in different locations and vice versa). The consequences of this approach are clear when we look at the responses to the tag photos. Unlike the photos of the pieces and throw ups, the tag category included a photo of racist tags. Clearly, when we asked respondents to prioritize removal, the content of the tags mattered most: a great majority of participants (84 per cent) chose the building with racist tags. The text included black scribbles saying ‘Geert Wilders’ (a Dutch right-wing anti-immigration politician), ‘Lonsdale’ (in the Netherlands, extreme right youth often wear clothes of the boxing label Lonsdale to express Nazi sympathies, see Grubben 2006 : 50), ‘WP’ (White Power), ‘NL’ (Netherlands, associated with White Power) and images of a swastika. Because the responses were heavily skewed towards the racist tags, we cannot say anything about the role of location for prioritizing the removal of tags. Clearly, offensiveness depends on a complex interaction between content, type and context.

We started this article with questioning the notion that the public usually views graffiti unambiguously as disorder, which is often the assumption underlying graffiti policy and many criminological studies on disorder. Based on qualitative and quantitative data on opinions regarding graffiti in the Netherlands, we showed that underneath a fairly neutral attitude towards graffiti there is great variation in evaluations, both between and within people, which indeed demonstrates graffiti’s ‘interstitial’ nature (‘it’s beautiful, but…’; ‘it’s criminal, but…’). We found that most evaluations were connected to two of the four value judgments that Millie ( 2011 ) distinguishes: positive evaluations are mostly connected to aesthetic qualities, while negative evaluations are connected to aesthetic and moral judgments. Few participants in their initial descriptions made prudential or economic considerations. This is perhaps surprising, given that local authorities often point to the costs of graffiti (damage, costs of removal) and to the effects of graffiti for the local environment (either as deterioration of neighbourhoods or as contributing to vibrant neighbourhoods). This is not to say that these considerations do not matter at all to the public, but it is not what first comes to mind.

Furthermore, we have shown that it matters what type of graffiti people see and in which context they see it. We presented participants with only three types of graffiti, not including murals and newer forms such as stencil art. Nonetheless, even considering these three graffiti types — the graffiti that policy makers seem most concerned about — judgments vary significantly. Moreover, it seems that the types and contexts of graffiti that are on average valued most positively, are also the types and contexts about which people seem to disagree the most. This further complicates the notion of unambiguous perceptions of disorder.

To round up we discuss three themes that we think warrant further attention. First, our study underlines the relevance of unravelling the role of context in interpreting behaviour and signals of behaviour, and what such signals in turn say about that particular context. Some practices, in our case graffiti, may or may not be viewed as disorder, and even when defined as such, may or may not signal crime or neighbourhood decay, depending on neighbourhood context (cf. Innes 2004 ; Sampson 2012 ). Our study complicates this argument: in addition to, and probably in relation to, neighbourhood context, context at the micro level shapes interpretations as well. Variation in situational appropriateness, place norms and physical features of places make any attempt to measure disorder ‘objectively’ problematic. We need more insight into the conditions under which people find certain behaviour frightening, annoying, criminal or acceptable and this includes investigating further how judgments of actions or behaviour relate to context, large and small. A combination of open-ended exploration with systematic questioning has additional value for both a general understanding of, and in-depth as well as contextual insight into attitudes and judgments.

Second, there is a tendency in studies on graffiti (and disorder more broadly) to assign certain viewpoints to certain groups: authorities, representing the public, who dislike graffiti versus writers who make graffiti. Actually, the policy practice is diffuse, and so is the opinion of the public. We suggest, building on Millie’s ( 2011 ) argument, that instead of distinguishing categories of people it may be more useful to distinguish the various value judgments that underpin the celebrating or criminalizing of practices. Insight into the various judgments can help structure the debate over whether graffiti should be tolerated, accepted or rather prevented and punished. That is, it matters for policy whether the objections are based on costs or damage that individuals (e.g. local entrepreneurs and home owners) are faced with, or the mere fact that it is against the law (even though people may like the graffiti and not experience any damage), or taste (that something is not ‘nice’ or ‘artistic’). In our study we found that approval and disapproval were based particularly on moral and aesthetic judgments and a combination of the two. These judgments imply different policy responses to graffiti: a first category of graffiti is unwanted because it is unlawful but in itself does not pose a problem (which could be translated into a more lenient policy), a second category of graffiti is unwanted solely because it is ‘ugly’ (which is a matter of personal taste; whether that is something for policy to regulate is an open question), and a third category of graffiti is unwanted because it is perceived as disorder or crime, or makes a place feel (even more) unsafe (to which policy could respond by removing it, demanding recovery of the damage by the writer, or negotiating with the writer to alter the graffiti — or even find other ways of making particular places safer).

However, and this is our third point, shifting from distinguishing groups or various stakeholders to distinguishing value judgments in itself does not help in thinking about who should decide and which value judgment should be valued most. This is not the place to answer that question, but we think that it is essential that authorities are (more) explicit, towards the public and towards graffiti writers, about which value judgments they deem important and legitimate. This may be of particular importance in the light of urban governments competing to be the most ‘creative’ city. On the one hand, this development seems to have led to more tolerance towards, or in any case a more nuanced view on, graffiti, which is translated into designated graffiti spaces and authorities commissioning graffiti projects. However, one could wonder whether this is merely replacing the decisive leverage of economic capital (graffiti as a threat to local economy and tourism) by cultural capital (graffiti as artistic and aesthetic value). We recall street artist Mau Mau who protested that the local authorities now decide ‘who paints where’ which has according to him led to ‘graffiti gentrification’ (Wainwright 2013 ). A more lenient policy may signify awareness to different views on what public space should look like and who may legitimately contribute to and alter it, but it may also be embraced merely because some graffiti contributes to the marketing of cities as creative places. In the latter case, we could question whether policies have in fact become more tolerant to different views. Insight into and an open debate about which value judgments matter in deciding what is accepted in public space and what not, may help to democratize decisions and explicate the (real) aims and views of local authorities about the place of graffiti in public space.

This research project also had another, methodological goal: to test the effect of textual descriptions versus visual representations of graffiti on evaluations and appreciation of the survey. To this end, three different versions of the survey were randomly administered: one including textual descriptions of the 18 examples of graffiti; another version showed 18 photographs and a third version used a combination of photographs and textual descriptions. Analyses of the three subsets revealed that participants did appreciate participating in the survey more when photos were included. However, variations in the survey design did not lead to significantly other findings in the context of the argument outlined here: evaluations of participants are comparable regardless of which version of the survey they filled out (Vanderveen and Jelsma 2011 ). For the analyses here, we combine all versions.

In all these pilot studies as well as in the current study, photographs were used. These photographs were taken by criminology students, the researchers or found on the internet.

We also analysed possible relationships of sociodemographic variables with general attitude and the perceived disorder scale of the different graffiti types (Vanderveen and Jelsma 2011 ). Overall, we did not find any strong relationship. Only age and gender had significant but small correlations, suggesting older people and men evaluate graffiti more negatively. This is for example indicated by the correlation between the general attitude scale (sum score) and age (e.g. ( r (881) = .19, p  < .000). However, overall findings indicate that common sociodemographic variables do not vary systematically with attitudes towards graffiti.

Austin, D. M., & Sanders, C. (2007). Graffiti and perceptions of safety: a pilot study using photographs and survey data. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 14 (4), 292–316.

Google Scholar  

Beckett, K., & Herbert, S. (2008). Dealing with disorder - social control in the post-industrial city. Theoretical Criminology, 12 (1), 5–30.

Article   Google Scholar  

Binken, S., & Blokland, T. (2012). Why repressive policies towards urban youths do not make streets safe: four hypotheses. Sociological Review, 60 (2), 292–311.

Blöbaum, A., & Hunecke, M. (2005). Perceived danger in urban public space. Environment and Behavior, 37 (4), 465–486.

Brighenti, A. M. (2010). At the wall: graffiti writers, urban territoriality, and the public domain. Space and Culture, 13 (3), 315–332.

Campbell, F. (2008). Good graffiti, bad graffiti? A new approach to an old problem. ENCAMS Research Report . Wigan: Environmental Campaigns.

Chiu, C. (2009). Contestation and conformity: street and park skateboarding in New York City public space. Space and Culture, 12 (1), 25–42.

Craw, P. J., Leland, L. S., Bussell, M. G., Munday, S. J., & Walsh, K. (2006). The mural as graffiti deterrence. Environment and Behavior, 38 (3), 422–434.

Cresswell, T. (1996). In place/out of place. Geography, ideology and transgression . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cresswell, T. (2009). Place. In N. Thrift & R. Kitchen (Eds.), International encyclopedia of human geography (pp. 169–177). Oxford: Elsevier.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Dickinson, M. (2008). The making of space, race and place. Critique of Anthropology, 28 (1), 27–45.

Dixon, J., Levine, M., & McAuley, R. (2006). Locating impropriety: street drinking, moral order, and the ideological dilemma of public space. Political Psychology, 27 (2), 187–206.

Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo . London: Routledge & K. Paul.

Book   Google Scholar  

Dovey, K., Wollan, S., & Woodcock, I. (2012). Placing graffiti: creating and contesting character in inner-city Melbourne. Journal of Urban Design, 17 (1), 21–41.

Eck, J. E., & Weisburd, D. (1995). Crime Places in Crime Theory. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place (Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 1–33). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.

Edwards, I. (2009). Banksy’s graffiti: a not-so-simple case of criminal damage. Journal of Criminal Law, 73 (4), 345–361.

Ferrell, J. (2009). Hiding in the light: graffiti and the visual. Criminal Justice Matters, 78 (1), 23–25.

Ferrell, J., & Weide, R. D. (2010). Spot theory. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 14 (1), 48–62.

Florida, R. L. (2004). The rise of the creative class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life . New York: Basic Books.

Foster, S., Giles-Corti, B., & Knuiman, M. (2010). Neighbourhood design and fear of crime: a social-ecological examination of the correlates of residents’ fear in new suburban housing developments. Health & Place, 16 (6), 1156–1165.

Franzini, L., Caughy, M. O., Nettles, S. M., & O’Campo, P. (2008). Perceptions of disorder: contributions of neighborhood characteristics to subjective perceptions of disorder. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28 (1), 83–93.

Gainey, R., Alper, M., & Chappell, A. (2011). Fear of crime revisited: examining the direct and indirect effects of disorder, risk perception, and social capital. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36 (2), 120–137.

Gomez, M. A. (1993). The writing on our walls: finding solutions trough distinguishing graffiti art from graffiti vandalism. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 26 (3), 633–708.

Grubben, G. (2006). Right-extremist sympathies among adolescents in the Netherlands. In P. Rieker, M. Glaser, & S. Schuser (Eds.), Prevention of right-wing extremism, xenophobia and racism in European perspective (pp. 48–66). Halle: Deutsches Jugendinstitut.

Halsey, M., & Young, A. (2006). 'Our desires are ungovernable' - writing graffiti in urban space. Theoretical Criminology, 10 (3), 275–306.

Harcourt, B. E., & Ludwig, J. (2006). Broken windows: new evidence from New York City and a five-city social experiment. University of Chicago Law Review, 73 (1), 271–320.

Haworth, B., Bruce, E., & Iveson, K. (2013). Spatio-temporal analysis of graffiti occurrence in an inner-city urban environment. Applied Geography, 38 , 53–63.

Hipp, J. R. (2007). Block, tract, and levels of aggregation: neighborhood structure and crime and disorder as a case in point. American Sociological Review, 72 (5), 659–680.

Innes, M. (2004). Signal crimes and signal disorders: notes on deviance as communicative action. British Journal of Sociology, 55 (3), 335–355.

Innes, M. (2005). What’s your problem - signal crimes and citizen-focused problem solving. Criminology & Public Policy, 4 (2), 187–200.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities . New York: Random House.

Karsten, L., & Pel, E. (2000). Skateboarders exploring urban public space: ollies, obstacles and conflicts. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 15 (4), 327–340.

Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2008a). The spreading of disorder. Science, 322 (5908), 1681–1685.

Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2008b). Supporting online material to The Spreading of Disorder. Science , http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5908/1681/suppl/DC1 . Accessed 18 Sept 2014.

Kleinhans, R., & Bolt, G. (2013). More than just fear: on the intricate interplay between perceived neighborhood disorder, collective efficacy, and action. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36 (3), 420–446.

Koster, R., & Randall, J. E. (2005). Indicators of community economic development through mural-based tourism. Canadian Geographer-Geographe Canadien, 49 (1), 42–60.

Kramer, R. (2010a). Moral panics and urban growth machines: official reactions to graffiti in New York City, 1990–2005. Qualitative Sociology, 33 (3), 297–311.

Kramer, R. (2010b). Painting with permission: legal graffiti in New York City. Ethnography, 11 (2), 235–253.

Lombard, K.-J. (2012). Art crimes: the governance of hip hop graffiti. Journal for Cultural Research, 17 (3), 255–278.

MacLeod, G., & Johnstone, C. (2012). Stretching urban renaissance: privatizing space, civilizing place, summoning 'community'. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36 (1), 1–28.

Markowitz, F. E., Bellair, P. E., Liska, A. E., & Liu, J. H. (2001). Extending social disorganization theory: modeling the relationships between cohesion, disorder, and fear. Criminology, 39 (2), 293–320.

McAuliffe, C. (2012). Graffiti or street art? Negotiating the moral geographies of the creative city. Journal of Urban Affairs, 34 (2), 189–206.

McAuliffe, C. (2013). Legal walls and professional paths: the mobilities of graffiti writers in Sydney. Urban Studies, 50 (3), 518–537.

Millie, A. (2008). Anti-social behaviour, behavioural expectations and an urban aesthetic. British Journal of Criminology, 48 (3), 379–394.

Millie, A. (2011). Value judgments and criminalization. British Journal of Criminology, 51 (2), 278–295.

Mitchell, D. (2003). The right to the city: social justice and the fight for public space . New York: Guilford Press.

Nolan, N. (2003). The ins and outs of skateboarding and transgression in public space in Newcastle, Australia. Australian Geographer, 34 (3), 311–327.

Paquet, C., Cargo, M., Kestens, Y., & Daniel, M. (2010). Reliability of an instrument for direct observation of urban neighbourhoods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97 (3), 194–201.

Perkins, D. D., & Taylor, R. B. (1996). Ecological assessments of community disorder: their relationship to fear of crime and theoretical implications. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24 (1), 63–107.

Ross, C. E., & Jang, S. J. (2000). Neighborhood disorder, fear, and mistrust: the buffering role of social ties with neighbors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28 (4), 401–420.

Rowe, M., & Hutton, F. (2012). ‘Is your city pretty anyway?’ Perspectives on graffiti and the urban landscape. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 45 (1), 66–86.

Ruggiero, V. (2010). Social disorder and the criminalization of indolence. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 14 (1), 164–169.

Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: a new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105 (3), 603–651.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighbourhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277 , 918–924.

Sibley, D. (1995). Geographies of exclusion: Society and difference in the West . London: Routledge.

Skogan, W. G. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods . New York: Free Press.

Smith, W., Frazee, S., & Davison, E. (2000). Furthering the integration of routine activity and social disorganization theories: small units of analysis and the study of street robbery as a diffusion process. Criminology, 38 (32), 489–523.

Snyder, G. J. (2006). Graffiti media and the perpetuation of an illegal subculture. Crime, Media, Culture, 2 (1), 93–101.

Taylor, M. F., Cordin, R., & Njiru, J. (2010). A twenty-first century graffiti classification system: a typological tool for prioritizing graffiti removal. Crime Prevention & Community Safety, 12 , 137–155.

Tempfli, E. (2012). Reacties op graffiti. Graffitibeleid bij gemeenten en openbaar vervoersbedrijven . [Responses to graffiti. Graffiti policy among muncipalities and public transport companies.] The Hague: Ministry of Security and Justice.

Uittenbogaard, A., & Ceccato, V. (2014). Safety in Stockholm’s underground stations: an agenda for action. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 20 (1), 73–100.

Vanderveen, G. N. G., & Jelsma, F. (2011). Graffiti in beeld. Eindrapportage. [A view on graffiti. Final report.] Leiden/Utrecht: Universiteit Leiden/ Centrum voor Criminaliteitspreventie en Veiligheid. http://www.hetccv.nl/binaries/content/assets/ccv/instrumenten/graffiti/graffiti_in_beeld_eindrapportage_definitief.pdf . Accessed 9 Aug 2015.

Vanderveen, G. N. G., & Jelsma, F. (2012). Kunst en/of criminaliteit. De ene graffiti is de andere niet. [Art and/or crime. All graffiti is not the same.]. Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, 11 (3), 3–19.

Wagers, M., Sousa, W., & Kelling, G. (2008). Broken windows. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis (pp. 247–262). Cullompton: Willan.

Wainwright, O. (2013). Olympic legacy murals met with outrage by London street artists. (2013, 6 August). The Guardian . http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/aug/06/olympic-legacy-street-art-graffiti-fury . Accessed 18 Sept 2014.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412983488 .

Weisburd, D., Groff, E., & Yang, S.-M. (2012). The criminology of place : Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

White, R. (2000). Graffiti, crime prevention & cultural space. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 12 (3), 253–168.

Whitford, M. J. (1991). Getting rid of graffiti: A practical guide to graffiti removal and anti-graffiti protection . London: E & F N Spon.

Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows. The Atlantic Monthly (February), 46–52.

Wyant, B. R. (2008). Multilevel impacts of perceived incivilities and perceptions of crime risk on fear of crime - isolating endogenous impacts. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45 (1), 39–64.

Xu, Y. L., Fiedler, M. L., & Flaming, K. H. (2005). Discovering the impact of community policing: the broken windows thesis, collective efficacy, and citizens’ judgment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42 (2), 147–186.

Young, A. (2010). Negotiated consent or zero tolerance? Responding to graffiti and street art in Melbourne. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 14 (1), 99–114.

Young, A. (2012). Criminal images: the affective judgment of graffiti and street art. Crime, Media, Culture, 8 (3), 297–314.

Zukin, S., & Braslow, L. (2011). The life cycle of New York’s creative districts: reflections on the unanticipated consequences of unplanned cultural zones. City, Culture and Society, 2 (3), 131–140.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Data collection for this work was supported by the Ministry of Security and Justice of the Netherlands and the Dutch Centre for Crime Prevention and Safety.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Recht op Beeld, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Gabry Vanderveen

Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology, Leiden Law School, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

Gwen van Eijk

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwen van Eijk .

Participants were asked to evaluate the following 18 examples of graffiti (photos can be viewed online in Vanderveen and Jelsma 2011 : 32):

A large image in multiple colours of a lion in football outfit and a ball with above the word ‘Holland’ on the wall of a house.

A word ‘HDG’ of thick letters in multiple colours on the wall of a house.

Scribbles of ‘Geert Wilders’, ‘Lonsdale’, ‘WP’, ‘NL’ and swastika’s in black on a building.

A tunnel with on the walls many images in multiple colours among which a skull, words in thick letters and scribbles.

Various words in thick letters in multiple colours on attributes of a skate park.

Images in multiple colours of a women’s head and a snake’s head on a wall with bushes and grass in front of it.

Many scribbles and words in thick letters in multiple colours on columns and walls under a viaduct.

A word of large thick letters in blue and white on a wall with bushes in front of it.

A number of scribbles in black on a bin in a green field with bushes.

A word ‘horkhater’ [translates as ‘jerkhater’] in thick letters in black and white on a viaduct.

A word of four thick rounded rectangular letters in multiple colours.

A word in thick round letters together with scribbles in multiple colours on a shutter of a take-away restaurant.

A large image in multiple colours of a fantasy face on the door of a dive shop.

Various scribbles and signs in diverse colours on top of each other.

Scribbles in diverse colours on a shutter of a phone shop.

An image in multiple colours of a boy and a skateboard on the back of a hill in a skatepark.

Image in multiple colours of a fantasy figure in a t-shirt and shorts.

Multiple scribbles in various colours on a hill in a skatepark.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Vanderveen, G., van Eijk, G. Criminal but Beautiful: A Study on Graffiti and the Role of Value Judgments and Context in Perceiving Disorder. Eur J Crim Policy Res 22 , 107–125 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-015-9288-4

Download citation

Published : 10 September 2015

Issue Date : March 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-015-9288-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Micro place
• Perceptions
• Value judgment
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Defining Graffiti: Art or Vandalism

A draft proposal for a paper about graffiti

Related Papers

Frandika Permana

Donald Richardson

Stefano Bloch

In this piece I argue against common defenses of graffiti.

Routledge eBooks

Graeme Evans

The Journal of American Culture

Carl Horowitz

Ondřej Škrabal , Leah Mascia , Ann Lauren Osthof , Malena Ratzke

An on-line workshop exploring the extent of graffitiing practices from antiquity to the present day and the diversity of scholarly traditions dealing with them. Registration at https://www.csmc.uni-hamburg.de/register-workshop3.html.

Geert J Verhoeven , Jona Schlegel , Massimiliano Carloni , Giulia Flenghi , Paola Guerreschi , Alessandra Meschini , Nora Shalaby , Martin Wieser

This is the book of abstracts created for the goINDIGO 2023 international graffiti symposium organised in the framework of the academic project INDIGO.

Inopinatum: Graffiti and Urban Creativity

Lachlan J MacDowall , Christian Ruggiero , Luca Borriello

Ivanka Stabreff Salazar , Cameron McAuliffe

In this paper, we critically review the literature on graffiti and street art with a view to bridging the divide between the stark extremities of public graffiti discourse. We make the case for moving beyond singular responses to the challenges posed by graffiti – into the complex terrain between visions of a city free from graffiti and one where public art has free rein. To this end, we have chosen a series of interrogations of common dialectical positions in talk of graffiti: is it art or crime; is it public or private expression; is it necessarily ephemeral, or does it seek permanence; is it a purely cultural practice, or is it economic? Our list is by no means exhaustive, but it does go some way to uncovering the complexity of graffiti's dynamic and contested geographies.

Street Art & Urban Creativity Scientific Journal

Malcolm Jacobson

There is an abundance of books, magazines, films and internet-forums dedicated to graffiti. How this documentation has influenced and been a part of the graffiti subculture has not been studied much. Drawing on personal experiences, as a documentarian and publisher of graffiti media over 27 years, Malcolm Jacobson recollects how the positions of participant and observer incessantly have twisted around each other. This has been mediated through development in media technology as well as by the coming of age of graffiti and its practitioners.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Adam Graycar

Geert J Verhoeven , Jona Schlegel , Massimiliano Carloni

David Surridge

Andrea Mubi Brighenti

Myrto Tsilimpounidi

Aesthetic Pathways 1:2 (108-117)

Julie C Van Camp

The Social Science Journal

Jeffrey Ian Ross , Jacqueline Z. Wilson

Journal of Applied Youth Studies

The International Journal of the Arts in Society: Annual Review

Luz del Carmen Vilchis Esquivel

Gamze Toylan

Lira Dasmarinas

Document | archive | disseminate graffiti-scapes. Proceedings of the goINDIGO2022 international graffiti symposium

Jona Schlegel , Massimiliano Carloni , Geert J Verhoeven

Jacob Kimvall

Avramidis, K., & Tsilimpounidi, M. (Eds.). (2017). Graffiti and Street Art: Reading, Writing and Representing the City. London: Routledge.

Konstantinos Avramidis , Myrto Tsilimpounidi

Jessica Keough

Global Hip Hop Studies

Sina A. Nitzsche

The Journal of American Folklore

George Gonos

Scott Haskins , Maya Panizzon

Public Art Dialogue

Barak Bullock

Kristina Borhes

Susan Hansen (THIS PAGE NOT ACTIVE - FOR CURRENT WORK SEE WEBSITES LISTED BELOW)

Lisa Waldner , Betty Dobratz

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

What significance can an unauthorized mark on a city wall have? Graffitied messages in everyday life often go unnoticed, being perceived as being just one among many of the experiences bombarding the senses in urban space. Yet street artists often feel a need to put such marks on walls, even if it has no impact, to affirm their presence in public space, a presence that demands recognition even if none is in the end forthcoming.

Graffiti has long been the subject of popular and media debate and scholarly research. Opinions about its value or appropriateness vary, depending on form and purpose. While street art and commissioned murals are often appreciated aesthetically and are sometimes even considered to raise the market value of urban space, tagging and spray-painted messages are generally seen as vandalism and as indicators of undesirable neighborhoods.

Long live Anarchists

A sympathetic position toward graffiti sees it as a form of civil disobedience and freedom, as a sign of resistance to the orderly structure of the city space. This idealized view would perhaps contend that taggers are simply looking for visibility—to make a mark—in a society that does otherwise ignores them, to find belonging in a sub-culture. They would likely point out that views voiced through graffiti messages are able to find a place in public space when they are silenced in other venues.

In that sense, graffiti could be an act of resistance against the established system whether we speak of the urban structure, the political establishment, or the prevailing social and economic order. However, we can ask: can graffiti be equated with resistance in the sense of revolutionary activism? To idealize graffiti in this way is to bring to the fore questions about what conditions might make graffiti socially meaningful and purposive.

Graffiti is cool as long as it is not on my wall

This idealistic view is subject to a common criticism—namely, that it ignores the obvious; sometimes a mark on a wall is just that: a mark on a wall, one that is likely also vandalizing shared space. Moreover, it is arguable that we are asking too much of a mere mark on a wall in attributing meaningful political action to it. And in doing so, we raise unrealistic expectations of graffiti artists as activists dedicated to acts of resistance that would bring about revolutionary outcomes and radical social change. Perhaps worse still, we hold often hold such artists in contempt—as best disloyal, at worst hypocritical—if they take on commissioned mural urban art, for example, or if they make a living out of their graffiti work.

Those idealistic and unfair expectation as well as negative opinions of graffiti drive us away from looking at what is graffiti actually doing—when it is doing something—and make us fail to distinguish when it actually matters. In certain contexts, graffiti painters can advance the representation of a specific group or idea in public space that might otherwise lack such representation in the political dialogue. In urban spaces that are visually monopolized by the state or corporate interests, a graffiti message can bring visibility to counter-voices and mobilize solidarity among the audience who relate to that voice.

Nobody really pays attention to graffiti messages anyway

Even though graffiti paintings often go unnoticed in everyday city life, their relative persistence—and the insistence of certain messages on them—have an effect on our feelings and experiences of different city spaces. Even if we do not remember individual graffiti messages encountered in urban space, they nevertheless leave us with on overall feeling of a space that is inclusive of some groups, exclusive of others, and spaces that represent a certain viewpoint.

For example, when a small group of graffiti artists, paint the statement ‘anti-Nazi zone’ all across the walls of a small city they shape the city space as one that is anti-Nazi for pedestrians experiencing that space, even though this view might not be that of the majority. Irrespective, the graffiti manages to make this viewpoint visible in urban space.

Graffiti thus has the potential to turn spaces into places; personalized locales that invite affective presence; that influence our feelings of being at home or being foreign, included or excluded. This potential is dependent on the content and context of the messages conveyed, as well as the various individual interpretations of them. Pedestrians interpret graffiti in a variety of ways, often in ways that tell us more about the receiver than of the graffiti, ways that are influenced by the pedestrian’s own viewpoints, and their relationship and memory of the place.

The banality of graffiti in times of struggle

The influence of graffiti messages often come to the fore in times of political and social turbulence, when an inclusive political dialogue is most needed but is not accessible to all social groups. In times when political struggle is about visibility and presence, and opposition groups strive to challenge authority’s monopoly over the representation in public space, graffiti messages come to assert the right to self-representation and active presence in public space.

During the Egyptian uprising in 2011, protestors took over the streets and main squares in different cities in Egypt. Among the protestors, there were those who also took over the grey walls of the cities, visually occupying the urban space and replacing the monopolized visual culture of a country that had been saturated with Mubarak images, replacing them with images of the people and the aspirations of the revolution.

The graffiti messages of the revolution played a key function in reconstructing the image of authority and positioning the protestors as the ones in power. The messages were mostly anonymous, temporary, and called for a democratic dialogue. Pedestrians reacted to these messages, reconstructed them, and often soon erasing them (or covering them with new messages). And throughout the different political power transitions since 2011, the Egyptian authorities have followed and systematically whitewashed graffiti ‘uprisings’.

However, this tale of retrenchment is only one part of the story—the beginning of it—and the one that caught local and international attention. The rest of the story can be seen in the social life surrounding these graffiti messages and images, how they have lived on after being erased, how they were documented, and how they came to be an integral part of the visual production and representation of the opposition movement in Egypt. The graffiti of 2011 in Egypt interrupted what had been a very homogenous public space, monopolized by the ruling power. A space where only the government is allowed to represent and be represented, and the citizen is only allowed to participate passively, as a pedestrian.

From one viewpoint, it may seem naive to speak of graffiti and its effect in a context where a revolution has been followed by thousands of lost lives and a counter-revolution that continues to suppress voices of opposition. However, it is through such expressions that activist created spaces to make the censored voices visible. Political resistance is often seen clearly in protests and opposition movements, but we overlook quieter every day actions through which the censored voices speak out, creating visibility and solidarity for their causes. Those spaces are created through the continuity and insistence of those voices to appear when the authority persists on silencing them.

Look, another vandal

So next time you see new graffiti painted in your street, ask yourself what it could potentially mean for you and for others. Perhaps it is just vandalism, another annoying mark on a wall. But maybe it has real value for a marginalized group of people that see themselves represented through it. Or maybe—just maybe—it brings a new voice into the public space that triggers reflexivity among a wider group of people and thus, social meaning and purpose beyond a mere ‘mark on a wall’.

Please consider giving a tax-free donation to Reset this year

Any amount will help show your support for our activities

In Europe and elsewhere (Reset DOC)

In the US (Reset Dialogues)

Home — Essay Samples — Arts & Culture — Graffiti — Why Graffiti Should Be Considered Art, Not Vandalism

Why Graffiti Should Be Considered Art, not Vandalism

• Categories: Graffiti Street Art

About this sample

Words: 1592 |

Published: Dec 16, 2021

Words: 1592 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Works cited

• Shoenberger, Elisa “Despite Graffiti’s Global Popularity, Cities Still Criminalize It” Artsy, 18 july 2019, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-despite-graffitis-global-popularity-cities-criminalize
• MacDonald, Christine “Street Art Used To Be the Voice of the People. Now It’s the Voice of Advertisers.” In These Times, 11 March 2019, https://inthesetimes.com/article/21732/street-art-murals-corporations-advertising-los-angeles-muralism-graffiti
• Lucero, Sage “Shepard Fairey and the Phenomenon of Street Art” Medium, 12 August 2018.
• Green, Madeleynn “A Beautiful Mess: The Evolution of Political Graffiti in the Contemporary City” Journal Quest, 11 August 2019, www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1699/a-beautiful-mess-the-evolution-of-political-graffiti-in-the-contemporary-city

Should follow an “upside down” triangle format, meaning, the writer should start off broad and introduce the text and author or topic being discussed, and then get more specific to the thesis statement.

Provides a foundational overview, outlining the historical context and introducing key information that will be further explored in the essay, setting the stage for the argument to follow.

Cornerstone of the essay, presenting the central argument that will be elaborated upon and supported with evidence and analysis throughout the rest of the paper.

The topic sentence serves as the main point or focus of a paragraph in an essay, summarizing the key idea that will be discussed in that paragraph.

The body of each paragraph builds an argument in support of the topic sentence, citing information from sources as evidence.

After each piece of evidence is provided, the author should explain HOW and WHY the evidence supports the claim.

Should follow a right side up triangle format, meaning, specifics should be mentioned first such as restating the thesis, and then get more broad about the topic at hand. Lastly, leave the reader with something to think about and ponder once they are done reading.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Arts & Culture

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1072 words

2 pages / 1128 words

1 pages / 250 words

2 pages / 1111 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Graffiti

Graffiti has long been a contentious form of expression, eliciting both admiration and disdain from society. While some view it as a vibrant art form that adds color and character to urban landscapes, others condemn it as a [...]

Graffiti has long been a subject of contention, often occupying a gray area between vandalism and art. Historically, it has been viewed as an act of defiance, a rebellious expression carried out under the veil of anonymity. [...]

You have no doubt seen graffiti painted on buildings, bridges, and walls. Many people dismiss it as vandalism, but others consider it a legitimate form of art. In this essay, I will discuss the cultural and social significance [...]

Banksy. (2019). Banksy . Available at: 2021).

When you think of graffiti what’s the first thing that comes to mind? Vandalism or street art? Most would say vandalism, but what makes the distinction between the two? The intention of the piece. There’s a difference between [...]

Graffiti: a form of artistic expression or a destructive act of vandalism? This age-old debate has sparked controversy and divided opinions for decades. From the vibrant murals adorning city walls to the crude tags scribbled on [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

George Clooney calls on president to step aside: Aging Biden no longer the man he was

• Copy Link URL Copied!

Even George Clooney — a mega-donor to President Biden’s reelection campaign — appears to have lost faith in the president’s ability to win the 2024 election.

The two-time Oscar winner, lifelong Democrat and high-profile campaign donor has formally asked the 81-year-old commander in chief to step aside so that the party can nominate a new candidate to take on former President Trump on the November ballot. Why? Because of Biden’s “fight against time,” which Clooney characterized as the only battle that POTUS cannot win.

Biden, Obama raise more than $30 million at glitzy L.A. event

President Biden joins former President Obama, George Clooney and Julia Roberts at star-studded fundraiser in L.A. that raises more than $30 million.

June 16, 2024

“None of us can,” Clooney wrote Wednesday in an opinion piece for the New York Times titled “I Love Joe Biden. But We Need a New Nominee.” “It’s devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fund-raiser was not the Joe ‘big F— deal’ Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate.”

Democrats took in $30 million at that downtown L.A. fundraiser, setting a record for money generated by the party in a single night. In addition to Clooney, Julia Roberts and former President Obama headlined the event and Jimmy Kimmel acted as emcee.

Clooney wrote that Biden was a “hero” who had “saved democracy” in 2020 and called upon him to “do it again in 2024.” But, citing Biden’s poor performance during CNN’s debate last month , he joined a growing number of Hollywood backers, including those who previously wrote large checks to the campaign, feeling skittish about Biden’s prospects despite the president’s resolve to remain in the race.

Some of those going public with their angst about Biden include “Lost” co-creator Damon Lindelof, Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, media titan Barry Diller, Disney heir Abigail Disney and Endeavor Chief Executive Ari Emanuel , brother of Rahm Emanuel, who is currently U.S. ambassador to Japan and formerly Obama’s chief of staff. Filmmaker Rob Reiner wrote Wednesday on X (formerly Twitter) that “Democracy is facing an existential threat. We need someone younger to fight back. Joe Biden must step aside.”

Hollywood Inc.

The Hollywood power players turning on the Biden campaign: ‘It’s about the ability to WIN’

Biden’s debate performance has Hollywood insiders wringing their hands about his presidential candidacy and what to do next.

July 5, 2024

In his op-ed, Clooney wondered if Biden was tired or suffering from a cold during his head-to-head with Trump. But he mostly took issue with the next-day narrative being spun by his party, arguing that Biden’s nomination was not yet a sure thing ahead of the Democratic National Convention in August. (The GOP convention starts Monday.)

“[O]ur party leaders need to stop telling us that 51 million people didn’t see what we just saw. We’re all so terrified by the prospect of a second Trump term that we’ve opted to ignore every warning sign. The George Stephanopoulos interview only reinforced what we saw the week before,” Clooney wrote. “As Democrats, we collectively hold our breath or turn down the volume whenever we see the president, who we respect, walk off Air Force One or walk back to a mic to answer an unscripted question.”

Clooney said it’s “fair” to point these things out: “This is about age. Nothing more.”

He predicted the Democrats are “not going to win in November with this president,” nor would they win the House of Representatives or retain their majority in the Senate. He said this isn’t just his opinion, but “the opinion of every senator and congress member and governor that I’ve spoken with in private. Every single one, irrespective of what he or she is saying publicly.”

“[T]he dam has broken. We can put our heads in the sand and pray for a miracle in November, or we can speak the truth,” the “Argo” and “Syriana” Academy Award winner wrote. “It is disingenuous, at best, to argue that Democrats have already spoken with their vote and therefore the nomination is settled and done, when we just received new and upsetting information. We all think Republicans should abandon their nominee now that he’s been convicted of 34 felonies.”

As Biden flounders, why aren’t more Democrats sold on Kamala Harris?

Despite her qualifications, Vice President Kamala Harris hasn’t been treated as a viable contender to Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee and a felon.

As such, Clooney also criticized the presumptive Republican candidate and “the revenge tour that Donald Trump calls a presidential campaign” and called for the Democrats to seriously consider potential replacements. Who? Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Vice President Kamala Harris, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear or Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, he suggests.

“Let’s agree that the candidates not attack one another but, in the short time we have, focus on what will make this country soar. Then we could go into the Democratic convention next month and figure it out.”

It would be “messy,” he said, but “democracy is messy” and a fresh contest would “enliven our party and wake up voters who, long before the June debate, had already checked out.”

Representatives for Clooney said Wednesday that they had “nothing to add” and that the essay presented his thinking “in its entirety.”

Also on Wednesday morning, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) sent a rare public signal that suggested she is trying to nudge Biden to consider dropping out of the election, telling MSNBC that it’s “up to the president to decide if he is going to run” and that “we’re all encouraging him to make that decision because time is running short.”

More to Read

In video shared by TMZ, George Stephanopoulos says Biden can’t ‘serve four more years’

July 10, 2024

Pelosi sends signal to Biden: ‘Time is running short’

Amid confusion among Democrats, Pelosi sends a loud message: ‘Time is running short’

The biggest entertainment stories

Get our big stories about Hollywood, film, television, music, arts, culture and more right in your inbox as soon as they publish.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Nardine Saad covers breaking entertainment news, trending culture topics, celebrities and their kin for the Fast Break Desk at the Los Angeles Times. She joined The Times in 2010 as a MetPro trainee and has reported from homicide scenes, flooded canyons, red carpet premieres and award shows.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Amid furor over reelection bid, Biden turns to his longtime backers: Democratic mayors

World & Nation

Judge says Rudolph Giuliani bankruptcy case likely to be dismissed

Litman: Will Trump’s conviction survive the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling? It’s complicated

‘Just wrong and shameful’: Visitors slammed for trashing Yosemite National Park with toilet paper

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Enormous Risks a Second Trump Term Poses to Our Economy

By Robert E. Rubin and Kenneth I. Chenault

Mr. Rubin is a senior counselor to Centerview Partners and was the U.S. Treasury secretary from 1995 to 1999. Mr. Chenault is the chairman and managing director of General Catalyst and a former chairman and chief executive of American Express.

Not long ago, one of us was having lunch with someone who manages a multibillion-dollar fund when the subject turned to the prospect of a second Trump term.

This person was disturbed by many of Donald Trump’s actions and concerned about what the November presidential election could mean. But when it came to one issue — the economy — he was untroubled. “We didn’t do so badly last time,” he said. “There are some things I don’t agree with, but I don’t think it will matter that much.”

We fear this is an increasingly common view. We’ve spoken to many leaders in business and finance who, when it comes to economic policy, are open to the premise that Mr. Trump is a normal presidential candidate.

We strongly disagree. The two of us have been involved in business, government and policy for many years, with more than a century of experience between us. We’ve worked with elected officials and business leaders across the ideological spectrum. And we believe a straightforward assessment of Mr. Trump’s economic policy agenda — based on his public statements and on-the-record interviews, such as the one he recently conducted with Time magazine — leads to a clear conclusion.

When it comes to economic policy, Mr. Trump is not a remotely normal candidate. A second Trump term would pose enormous risks to our economy.

At a time when our country was already on an increasingly risky debt trajectory, Mr. Trump’s tax initiatives during his presidency added an estimated $3.9 trillion to the national debt , according to Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute. Mainstream analyses concluded that the result — increasing demand in an already full-employment economy while having a negligible effect on business investment — added very little benefit in the shorter term and virtually nothing in the longer term.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .