Ted Henderson post 2 second half

There is in fact a style of artwork that, for the most part, I find unhelpful in promoting the general good of the public. This is not to say that every piece of art created in this style is destructive and unworthy of being deemed expressive and useful, but in general, I believe that graffiti, most notably that seen spray-painted on countless concrete surfaces in urban areas, does not promote any general state of being for us as a nation. Graffiti, as much as many people believe it to be a substantial form of artistic expression, is without a doubt a common form of vandalism, and is a direct violation of not only United States law, but blatantly goes against the moral code upheld in the minds of many citizens of any country that it is wrong to deface or misuse property that is not one's own. A fact that causes me to be even less sympathetic with those who take part in graffiti is that, in most cases, graffiti in no way glorifies or makes note of any sort of worthwhile moral thought, or deep thought of any kind for that matter. Certainly those who practice graffiti as an art would have a bit more of a defense against the argument that the spray-painting they involve themselves in is not morally worthwhile to a nation if it weren't for the fact that nearly all of these building-side paintings of theirs are simplifying a fancy looking version of the self-given nickname of the artist. If one is going to take part in defacing property not belonging to them self and deem it art, I at least ask that this art display something slightly more meaningful than their own name, be it fancy looking as it may. I believe it to be quite clear from his writings in The Republic that Plato would in no way find graffiti to be a morally substantial art form. Plato made the point in these writings that art was not fit for a "well-ordered State" (The Republic, Book X) unless it was created with the purpose of either honoring a famous and noble man for his deeds in life, or glorifying the creator of humanity and the ideal realm which he, along with other philosophers of his time, believed all people should continually strive for in the lives they lead. Obviously, graffiti seldom servers either of these purposes, and in the only instance in which it seems to be utilized in some sort of a moral sense are those few instances in which it is used by a mistreated people as political protest. It is because of the fact that graffiti does not fulfill these ideals that Plato believed all art must consist of that I find it safe to assume he would have blatantly scoffed at those who believed the spray-painting of buildings, sidewalks, and monuments to be an art form which was worthy of existing in a "well-ordered State".