Rhetorical Analysis: Art In The Streets

“This world is but a canvas to our imagination” (Thoreau). The world is quite literally a canvas for graffiti artists, and these two opinion editorials cover the desire for this medium of art to be appreciated and showcased. Eric Felisbret wrote “Legal Venues Celebrate Graffiti as an Art Form” which was published on July 16, 2014 in the New York Times. Felisbret’s article was about creating more legal venues to showcase graffiti. Kathy Grayson wrote “L.A. Graffiti Exhibition, ‘Art in the Streets,’ belongs in N.Y.C.,” which was published on June 26, 2011 in the New York Daily News. Grayson wrote her article to persuade readers that “Art in the Streets” belongs in New York. The articles were simultaneously the same and very different in their content. Even though the specific messages were diverse the purpose was to persuade the discourse community, who value law, education, and their community, into having graffiti displayed as art. These two

She starts of by reminiscing about “graffiti’s beginnings” and how it was about “empowering people who had no voice” and graffiti was an “exhilarating chapter in the city’s history” (Grayson par. 5). This is appropriate for her audience because it reminds them why graffiti belongs in New York, and makes them happy to remember this beautiful artwork they remembered seeing. She then goes on to make her audience feel guilty for the negative conception they have about the artists and their art. She evokes that guiltiness when she says, “it is ludicrous to think that an exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum would have inspired gangs of graffiti goons … You know what inspires tagging? Bad architecture. Commercialism. The sanitized state of the city” (Grayson par. 9). It is appropriate because it makes the audience realize that this was a great thing for the city and they need to get it