Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.

Find Lesson Plans on getty.edu! GettyGames

Re: [teacherartexchange] interesting article..

---------

From: Jean King (kingjean_at_TeacherArtExchange)
Date: Sun Aug 31 2008 - 06:25:01 PDT


For several days I have been thinking about the very disturbing
article that you mentioned as being "articulate on the subject" of
graffiti.

I must have missed out on something here. I haven't heard of
"taggers" or graffiti artists killing people who try to stop them.
Where and when did such a thing happen? How many times has it
occurred? Are there gangs of killer taggers running our streets?
Where are the facts? I couldn't find any in the article.

The article you gave the URL to seems to be attempting to define
differences in conservative and liberal thought processes and beliefs
about graffiti and private property, among other things. The logic
there is faulty at best. Then, somehow, the author turns to advocate
shooting taggers. Have I missed something?

The article advocates "shooting to wound". Interesting. I hope the
righteous citizen who takes this to heart is an excellent shot.
According to what the author of the article is suggesting, at the very
least people will be hurt, if not killed, and not by killer taggers,
but rather by self righteous conservatives. The general public is at
risk of stray bullets and anyone could end up dead or injured. I
don't know about you, but it seems irresponsible to encourage people
to shoot people.

If there are killer taggers, and again that is a big IF with no facts
to support it, do you believe there should be vigilante squads to hunt
them? I live in a large city with a great deal of graffiti. We have
laws. We have police. I seem to recall somewhere hearing that it was
not the best idea for me to take the law into my own hands. When I
spot someone breaking the law, such as painting on my neighbor's
fence, I call the police. That's what they are there for. Vandalism
is vandalism. Private property is private property. There are laws
dealing with graffiti and vandalism in my city. There are also gun
laws.

There is a difference between simply vandalizing property and creating
art, at least in my mind, although not in the eyes of the law. Most
of the graffiti that appears in my neighborhood is not very
aesthetically pleasing, but some of it is truly thought provoking.
Some of the graffiti in my neighborhood is done at the invitation of
the property owner. But that aside, since when does graffiti create
the need to shoot its creators?

Years ago I used to read the National Enquirer because I found it
humorous, that was, until I realized some people took it seriously.
This article reminds me that some people believe anything they read.

Jean King
Houston, Texas

On Aug 26, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Shannon McGraw wrote:

> I remember a while ago, a discussion on graffiti. Taggers are now
> killing people that try to stop them. I may be the only conservative
> art teacher in America..but at the time, I said graffiti is not to be
> admired and elevated to art. It's a crime, and giving crime a 'pass'
> only allows it to grow; hence the fact that many are embolden to kill
> those that try and stop them.
> Here's someone more articulate on the subject.
>
> http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/08/26/on_shooting_tagge
> rs_why_conservatives_and_liberals_differ?page=full&comments=true
>
> Shannon McGraw
>

---
To unsubscribe go to 
http://www.getty.edu/education/teacherartexchange/unsubscribe.html