conclusion draft

Art, obviously, is a very wide term, and different people have equally different views and opinions on what can actually be comprehended as "ART". Graffiti, for example, is taken as both an art form and possibly as illegal "stunts" or vandalism. Even in the context of graffiti, there are differing forms. Works from artists like Banksy makes use of stencils to quickly and efficiently paint a figure, while portraying some kind of message which is usually political. Work from people like Edgar Mueller is more traditional, without the use of stencils, and using paint, chalk, pastels, along with spray paints, except that instead of a canvas pavement is used to create 3D art. On the other hand, works like telekinetically bent VW van and the ‘air bear’ are more like sculptures, though the van is plonked in the middle of the road, and there is an "email conversation" stuck on the window, and the ‘air bear’ inflates and deflates with the passing of subway trains and its made of plastic bags. More anonymous works like graffiti bombs don’t usually have a message and is usually a kind of signature, though they generally look quite stunning.
All those kinds of artworks could be considered as legitimate, since the artists skill in creating them is evident. Witty thinking is quite clear in works like banksys and Erwin Wurms van. Creativity is shown in the bombs and air bear. Analytical planning had clearly gone on in works like Banksys graffiti depicting graffiti removal, and especially in Edgar Muellers not scared.
Illegitimate graffiti would obviously be tagging, as its merely writing on a wall or cubicle in a public toilet, and usually quite vulgar and obscene.

Graffiti is legitimate because skill and thoughtful planning is used along with traditional and contemporary art making techniques to communicate ideas, messages, and themes to appeal to a wide array of audiences, just like any kind of art.

by amon...........i cant seem to finish this.......help would be appreciated