Some people feel that cities should allow for spaces for graffiti while others feel it should be banned. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.

It is still controversial if

graffiti

work should be allowed in the cities or not. Some cities give a lot of freedom to

artists

to showcase their performances,

while

others don't agree with it and feel that they are destroying the building walls. The aim of

this

essay is to explore both sides of

this

topic and comes up with a reasoned conclusion. First of all,

graffiti

is artwork done by street

artists

, who are not popular and enjoy their freedom to express their effort on random buildings in the

city

. Many of these

artists

have done amazing tasks to show their feeling and opinion in their performances.

For example

, Melbourne has many famous streets in the

city

which are full of beautiful

graffiti

. Some of them are popular tourist places to take photos with their friends and family. Some of those streets are AC/DC lane and the Hozzeir lane. These

artists

are been supported by the

city

council for their effort and have been given the responsibility to maintain and look after the artwork in the

city

.

Nevertheless

,

this

is not the same case in other countries. Many people believe that

this

is just a way to destroy people's houses and shops but local gangs and street kids express their anger or just give trouble to the people. In cities like New York, where

graffiti

work is banned by the local council, in order to maintain the beauty of the building in the CBD or around it. Many of these

graffiti

are just random logos or gang signs that are not lovely and showcase malice by the crowd who make them. A lot of money is spent everywhere by the owners to clean up

this

graffiti

from their workplace or home. After analysing the above points, I believe that

graffiti

is only nice and should be allowed if it doesn't harm anyone in any way. If it helps to add to the beauty of the building

then

it should be allowed.