Some people regard graffiti as an art form, however in reality it ruins a city’s appearance and should be considered a type of vandalism

Currently, substantial drawing and images on the walls are found in the streets, which is called graffiti. Some people believe it is an art, while other think it ruins the city’s features. This essay will argue that graffiti considers as an art is not true. The issue discussed cost, expression of culture and thoughts, and vandalism. To commence, the graffiti ruin the view of the cities and should not be considered as an art due to its high cost of removal. For example, if we want to remove the painting on the wall for several reasons such as demolishing the appearance of the street or an appropriate drawing, workers and material are needed for that. As a result, money should be spent and wasted for taking it off. Conversely, graffiti can be an art because it presents the enormous thoughts of individuals, whose fully free to express their sense of art in these paints on walls. For instance, seeing a lot of graffiti in different streets around the cities, can show the notable feature of people’s taste. Also, some meaningful images of country’s history, provide for the tourist a considerable knowledge. Therefore, it encourages presenting the notions and culture. Nevertheless, it is not an art because it is a vandalism for properties. To elaborate, not all the painting are incredible, some of them looks dreadful and just demolish the buildings and walls. Hence, graffiti has a negative influence on the appearance of the properties. In conclusion, money and vandalism of properties are the reasons that I agree with the concept of the graffiti being a damage for the appearance and not an art. Some believes that graffiti is a part of the art which display the artistic skills. However, it still needs effort and time to remove it. Thus, graffiti should be considering as a damage for public property.