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

writers both evoked an emotional reaction from the audience, but Grayson had more credibility even though they both catered to the values of their target audience.
To start, Felisbret evokes an array of emotions from his readers in order to change the fact that there are so few legal venues for this medium of art. He states that there is a lack of true meaningful art because it is a crime and “few legal venues allow for complete creative freedom” (Felisbret par. 7). He wants his readership to feel somber about this lack of pure beauty in New York because of the restraints these artists must deal with in order to create. His most powerful statement in his entire essay refers to “the destruction of legal venues like the 5pointz building in Queens” (Felisbret par. 8). The audience should grieve of the loss of this incredible building because it means the world to an abundance of people. It was one huge collaborative art piece that is being destroyed, and the thought of destruction should make the target audience somber because they love their city and love art. Felisbret abruptly changes the audience’s emotions to joy so that they realize there are still a few legal venues, and they should want to keep these amazing displays up and running.
In addition, Grayson makes her audience feel guilty and nostalgic when it comes to “Art in the Streets” being in a city where it does not belong.

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

back.
Furthermore, Grayson has credibility that is highly appealing to the audience of her piece. She is not a graffiti artist herself, and therefore, the audience can relate to her because they are more versed in her line of art work. She “was a director – of Deitch Projects” and put together other art shows in New York (Grayson par. 2). This demonstrates her respectable work experience in the art industry. Grayson also shows her extensive knowledge of art when she mentions “the artworks in the show, which range from Keith Haring’s legendary subway drawings to Kenny Scharf’s black light ‘Cosmic Cavern’…”(Grayson par. 3). Sharing her history with the art world makes her argument more impactful to the audience because even though she work with high end art, she still cares about the showcasing of what some consider to be nothing more than vandalism. This is appropriate for her audience because they start to think that if a well-respected art curator cares so much about this medium then they should look at this graffiti in a different light.
On the other hand, Felisbret’s situated credibility is in the first half of his article in order to gain the trust and respect of the audience before delving into his argument. Felisbret shares his history in graffiti by sharing that “the movement – which I have been documenting in New York for over 30 years – was founded on [assuming great risk] and it defines its essence” (Felisbret par. 4). He has extensive work experience, so that gives him some credibility because it shows he truly knows what he writing about. Any audience would trust someone who has worked in their respective field for that long. However, once he does get into his argument and shares, “There would be fewer examples of graffiti art in this city without the legal venues, and we should push for more of them. Even then, I truly miss seeing real graffiti in its purest form,” he slowly loses his credibility (Felisbret par. 10). He is making it known that he prefers the art that is done without permission than the art that is displayed in the venues he is trying to save. His credibility falls short here because it is not appropriate for an audience that is opposed to graffiti because it is illegal or they view it as defacing the community that they adore.
However, Felisbret does still appeal to the values of discourse community because his end goal to create more legal venues. His readership also values business and community, and Felisbret discusses how the building that was destroyed once brought quite the attraction to New York, and was well known world-wide (Felisbret par. 9). He shares this information in an effort to persuade the business leaders and the wealthy that these legal venues are great for their economy, which is highly appropriate for someone who heavily values their money. It also appropriate because it shines light on the community and how it is greater because of the venues. Felisbret also appeals to their value of law and art when he states, “If you don’t have permission to write or paint, it is a crime. The law does not distinguish between a Rembrandt-caliber painting and an intentional act of vandalism” (Felisbret par. 2). By agreeing with those who see it as nothing more than an illegal act of destruction, they do not feel attacked, and therefore, he is bringing them over to his side. He then hits them with the second line to show them that it does not matter what you see as art; if it is tagged onto a building it is a crime. He does this to show them that the law is not always black and white, and to think differently about this style of art before disregarding it as purposeful destruction.
In addition, Grayson appeals to the values of the audience through her rationale. The majority of the readers of this publication identify themselves as having a Liberal ideology; given that one can assume they value self-expression because it is one of the core values of liberalism. Grayson appeals to both that and the strong business ethic of the wealthy community by stating that “everywhere, corporate advertisements tell us: ‘Express yourself.’ The graffiti guys and girls are actually doing it” (Grayson par. 5). She is saying that the only people who are even listening to this propaganda are graffiti artists and the community is just casting them aside. It was appropriate because it shows the audience how wrong they were while simultaneously appealing to their values. Another value that the discourse community holds is respect for the law, so in order to sway the audiences she states that most famous graffiti artists never vandalized anyone’s private building (Grayson par. 6). She is feeding the audience this information to persuade them that this exhibit is actually really good for the community in so many ways.
In conclusion, both writers were effective with the content of their argument, but the appropriateness of Felisbret’s credibility hindered his argument. Felisbret and Grayson evoked the necessary emotions from their audiences to prompt the action of legally showcasing graffiti as art. Also, both appealed to the various character values of the discourse community. Neither were perfect in constructing their arguments but Grayson had more appropriate credibility for her audience and in the end that is the most important. The lesson from this is that it does not matter what the writer has to say if he or she cannot be relatable or respected by the audience then the argument is null and void.