In the art industry, writing does not look same as other writings in other industries. Biology majors create lab reports, marketing majors produce publications, and communication majors communicate through websites, journals, blogs, etc. No one form of writing is reduced to one major, but specific types of writing seem to work better in some areas. When it comes to art, however, writing seems to shift. From my experience, the people who actually create and produce the art don’t really write extensively about what they have created. Usually, another outside source composes writing about the artwork made. The same idea of writing is evident when it comes to graffiti. Since its emergence in New York in the 1970s, art critics and historians have debated heavily on graffiti and whether it should actually be considered “art” or not. Even though this controversy is not new, the recent ascension of careers of street artists like Banksy and Morley have resurrected this pending argument. Examples of this include The New York Times article by Heather Mac Donald and the Art Crimes academic research essay by Timothy Werwath. Both pieces of writing discuss graffiti as an art form, but do so in slightly different manners. The New York Times article’s blog structure and approach make it seen more as strong opinion, whereas the academic essay structure and scholarly writing style of the Art Crimes article provides its information more effectively and with more credibility.
In the article from The New York Times, Mac Donald discusses why graffiti should never be considered art. The structure of the text is easy to digest. Its simple format, a title and paragraphs following, is suitable for the audience, which is people who are interested in the argument about graffiti as an art form. She uses the title “Graffiti Is Always Vandalism” which grabs the reader’s attention either because they disagree or agree, but want to see how Mac Donald supports such a direct claim. She continues with an attention grabbing intro: a question. By asking a question and using second person voice she gets the reader to reflect and gets the reader invested. The rhetorical manner of the question coaxes the reader to agree with her standpoint on the issue and continue reading. Mac Donald’s article is relatively short, with only 6 small paragraphs and one image. Overall, the essay’s format and minimalism makes it easier for Mac Donald to get straight to her point.
Mac Donald continues this pattern in her approach of explaining her stance on the argument. She uses short sentences like “Graffiti is always a crime” which make the article easy and fast to read. She uses one picture of real graffiti so the reader has a quick reference, but not too many. The picture shows a ‘graffiti-bombed subway’, which shows the train covered in markings, making the train look less inviting. This supports her claim that graffiti is always vandalism because it is a visual representation of how unattractive graffiti can sometimes be. As these factors help build her claim, other factors do not. Throughout the article Mac Donald over generalizes and makes claims that she did not prove to be true with a source. In the second paragraph she states that institutions like the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles or the Museum of the City of New York would not allow graffiti on their property. Although this statement could very well be true, she provides no proof that either museums have actually said this, so her statement is technically invalid. Also, in the third paragraph, Mac Donald gives a definition of graffiti that says graffiti is done “in an adolescent display of entitlement.” This claim is an overgeneralization because she can’t possibly know the age of every single graffiti artist or their motives behind their work. This definition and the rest of the article seems to have bias based on word choice. In her short article, Mac Donald doesn’t use many rhetorical devices to help her case. However, she does use word choice pretty well. She uses words with negative connotation and denotation to talk about graffiti such as: entitlement, vandalism, juvenile, irrelevant, crime, etc. These words show that Mac Donald’s opinion was set before she wrote the article which leaves out room to explore other sides to the argument. The articles one-sidedness creates bias, but most articles do and Mac Donald does a good job of not leaving the reader wondering where she stands on the issue.
In the other piece of writing, The Culture and Politics of Graffiti Art, its structure was very much different that of the The New York Times article. Also, Werwath had an opposing view to Mac Donald. Werwath proposed that graffiti in fact is art. He does this first with his writing, which was planned out, broken up into titled headings, further letting the reader know what each section would be about. This structure allows the reader better navigation throughout the content. Although the introduction was not as captivating as Mac Donalds, Werwath gets the reader’s attention using a quote about graffiti. Also, The Art Crimes article is significantly longer, which could lead the reader to think that real time was spent writing it and not just opinion. If readers believe that actual time was spent to write the essay, then that could also lead the reader to trust Werwath’s credibility.
When it comes to scholarly writing, Werwath also proves his credibility. When he makes a claim in his writing, he also has a source of where he got that claim from, so it’s not an overgeneralized statement. For example, Werwath states: “Aesthetic criteria and motives behind the artist’s work far outweigh arguments on legality or unconventional presentation.” Not only does he say that but he also cites his source in the following parenthesis. Similar to Mac Donald, Werwath also thought an image would be effective in arguing their case. However, unlike Mac Donald, Werwath used over 25 pictures to support his idea. Providing more than one example gets the reader to trust what you are saying even more. Werwath also strays from using more than one point of view. Mac Donald switches from second person to third person while Werwath maintains the third person perspective. That keeps the paper more professional and is an example of scholarly writing. Although scholarly, the length of the article allows plenty room for fun rhetoric. Werwath uses a hyperbole when he says “The explosion of this new style of art became so big that it was impossible not to notice.” The exaggeration helps the reader understand just how big graffiti was getting. Whether growth in a good or bad way, Werwath explores negative ideas about graffiti, which is the opposite of what he believed. Mac Donald’s article did not do that, which diminishes the reliability of her statement. Lastly, Werwath includes quotes from actual artists themselves, discussing why they do what they do. This aspect of the article is effective because Werwath is not generalizing every graffiti artists’ reason for what they do, unlike Mac Donald. Werwath’s scholarly style proved to be very helpful to supporting his claim on the controversy of graffiti.
Both the The New York Times article and the Art Crimes article discuss graffiti as an art form. Mac Donald’s article was short and to the point, which is good for audience digestion. An important question was raised she even got some people to agree with her (from the comments under her article). However, it is safe to say that Werwath’s article proved to be more effective. His word choice was not in favor of any particular conclusion, he simply presented facts. He also presented sources, unlike Mac Donald, which let the reader know that his information wasn’t biased, but based on real research. His use of pictures and quotes from the artists themselves helped the reader get a better understanding of graffiti and also a variety of it. His lack of opinion and openness leads the reader to agree with him over Mac Donald. The flow, organization of information, evidence, and rhetorical devices all come together to make Werwath’s article compelling. This goes to show that popular isn’t always the right choice for efficiency and that scholarly writing, although long and precisely structured, can be powerful.
