Many individuals think that cities should banning the area for graffiti while others feel that cities need to give spaces for this creation. From my perspective, I strongly agree that graffiti should not be allowed in cities as it can bring a detrimental effect for city’s sceneries.
On the one hand, graffiti spaces can be media for expressing individual’s creativity. This is because illustrators can show off about their masterpiece to public, motivating them to increase their skills. For example, there are many famous illustrators come from amateur artists who enjoy to create graffiti in Jakarta’s open spaces. The government give access to the artist to publish their creation. As a consequence, media can get easily to notice them and brings them to be a popular person, enhancing eagerness to develop their hobbies.
On the other hand, this creation can make city scenery looks dirty. The graffiti is unorganised well, making it possible to ban graffiti. For instance, Local councils in Surabaya city implement sanctions and fines for those who like to create graffiti in open spaces. This movement can assist government to maintain Surabaya in clean conditions. In my opinion, I agree with banning of graffiti due to the fact that people need to keep the beautiful scenery of city. If we allow this art forms, it can reduce the interest of tourist to visit this city.
To sum up, although allowing spaces for graffiti in public areas can enhance inhabitant’s creativity, it has a disadvantage to tourism fields because it can reduce the great scenery of city, resulting in the reduction of visitors.