The question of whether cities should not disregard graffiti, providing spaces for them, remains a source of controversy, as some people argue that the street should be prohibited. While I acknowledge the important of the latter view, I believe that the advantage of the former would be more beneficial for community.
The advocates of allowing spaces for the street art believe that graffiti has a positive impact on local economies, earning revenue for the country. To elaborate, if the government regards the importance of art works and offers area for street artists to create their stunning work, the area which full of street painting would become to the newlandmark that attract many visitor to come on vocation contribute to increase local business income such as hotels. Consider city that emphasize graffiti like Miami, United States, for instance: the famous Wynwood Wall festival which engages thousands of artists and visitors from worldwide lead to all of the accommodation around the area are booked by people who come to absorb the vibrant graffiti. It is not surprise , therefore, that United States earn a lot of profit during this captivating festival
On the other hand, Those in favor of graffiti should be banned claim that painting on the public porperty can be used for gang to address their territory. To illustrate, In the area that graffiti is prevalent, people tend to avoid passing that ways. Some gang use graffiti to leave messages or demonstrate their power for warning other gangs. In addition, The messages that painted on the wall often contian inappropiate content that lead to people concern that it would be negative influance on children. Take country that graffiti is illegal like Japan, for instance: in Japan, painting on public walls is considered a crime especially graffiti that demonstrate gang’s symbol. It is not surprise, therefore, All of the wall in Japan does not have any messages that illustrate the territory.