QUIZ FOR GRADE X

Graiti is Always Vandalism

Anyone who glorifies graffiti needs to answer one question: If your home were tagged during the night without your consent, would you welcome the new addition to your décor or would you immediately call a painter, if not the police? 

First of all, graiti is something that one celebrates, if one is juvenile enough to do so, when it shows up on someone else’s property but never on one’s own. No institution that has celebrated graiti in recent years — like the Museum of Contemporary Art in

Los Angeles or the Museum of the City of New York — would allow its own premises to be defaced for even one minute.

Next, the question “When does graiti become art?” is meaningless. Graiti is always vandalism. By deinition, it is committed without permission on another person’s property, in an adolescent display of entitlement. Whether particular viewers ind any given piece of graiti artistically compelling is irrelevant. Graiti’s most salient characteristic is that it is a crime.

Furthermore, John Lindsay, the progressive New York politician who served as mayor from 1966 to 1973, declared war on graiti in 1972. He understood that graiti signaled that informal social controls and law enforcement had broken down in New York’s public spaces, making them vulnerable to even greater levels of disorder and law­breaking. A 2008 study from the Netherlands has shown that physical disorder and

vandalism have a contagious effect, confirming the “broken windows theory.” 

In conclusion, there is nothing “progressive” about allowing public amenities to be defaced by graffiti; anyone who can avoid a graiti-bombed park or commercial thoroughfare will do so, since tagging shows that an area is dominated by vandals

who may be involved in other crimes as well.

Based on the text, what is the primary purpose of this text?

• • A) To explore the artistic merits of graffiti.

• • B) To argue that graffiti is always a form of vandalism.

• • C) To discuss the history of graffiti in New York City.

• • D) To analyze the "broken windows theory."

• • E) To promote public art initiatives.

Graiti is Always Vandalism

Anyone who glorifies graffiti needs to answer one question: If your home were tagged during the night without your consent, would you welcome the new addition to your décor or would you immediately call a painter, if not the police? 

First of all, graiti is something that one celebrates, if one is juvenile enough to do so, when it shows up on someone else’s property but never on one’s own. No institution that has celebrated graiti in recent years — like the Museum of Contemporary Art in

Los Angeles or the Museum of the City of New York — would allow its own premises to be defaced for even one minute.

Next, the question “When does graiti become art?” is meaningless. Graiti is always vandalism. By deinition, it is committed without permission on another person’s property, in an adolescent display of entitlement. Whether particular viewers ind any given piece of graiti artistically compelling is irrelevant. Graiti’s most salient characteristic is that it is a crime.

Furthermore, John Lindsay, the progressive New York politician who served as mayor from 1966 to 1973, declared war on graiti in 1972. He understood that graiti signaled that informal social controls and law enforcement had broken down in New York’s public spaces, making them vulnerable to even greater levels of disorder and law­breaking. A 2008 study from the Netherlands has shown that physical disorder and

vandalism have a contagious effect, confirming the “broken windows theory.” 

In conclusion, there is nothing “progressive” about allowing public amenities to be defaced by graffiti; anyone who can avoid a graiti-bombed park or commercial thoroughfare will do so, since tagging shows that an area is dominated by vandals

who may be involved in other crimes as well.

How is the argument mainly structured?

• • A) Chronological order of events.

• • B) Problem and solution.

• • C) Cause and effect.

• • D) Definition, examples, and supporting evidence.

• • E) Compare and contrast.

Graiti is Always Vandalism

Anyone who glorifies graffiti needs to answer one question: If your home were tagged during the night without your consent, would you welcome the new addition to your décor or would you immediately call a painter, if not the police? 

First of all, graiti is something that one celebrates, if one is juvenile enough to do so, when it shows up on someone else’s property but never on one’s own. No institution that has celebrated graiti in recent years — like the Museum of Contemporary Art in

Los Angeles or the Museum of the City of New York — would allow its own premises to be defaced for even one minute.

Next, the question “When does graiti become art?” is meaningless. Graiti is always vandalism. By deinition, it is committed without permission on another person’s property, in an adolescent display of entitlement. Whether particular viewers ind any given piece of graiti artistically compelling is irrelevant. Graiti’s most salient characteristic is that it is a crime.

Furthermore, John Lindsay, the progressive New York politician who served as mayor from 1966 to 1973, declared war on graiti in 1972. He understood that graiti signaled that informal social controls and law enforcement had broken down in New York’s public spaces, making them vulnerable to even greater levels of disorder and law­breaking. A 2008 study from the Netherlands has shown that physical disorder and

vandalism have a contagious effect, confirming the “broken windows theory.” 

In conclusion, there is nothing “progressive” about allowing public amenities to be defaced by graffiti; anyone who can avoid a graiti-bombed park or commercial thoroughfare will do so, since tagging shows that an area is dominated by vandals

who may be involved in other crimes as well.

According to the text, in what year did John Lindsay declare "war on graffiti"?

• • A) 1966

• • B) 1973

• • C) 2008

• • D) 1972

• • E) 1980

Graiti is Always Vandalism

Anyone who glorifies graffiti needs to answer one question: If your home were tagged during the night without your consent, would you welcome the new addition to your décor or would you immediately call a painter, if not the police? 

First of all, graiti is something that one celebrates, if one is juvenile enough to do so, when it shows up on someone else’s property but never on one’s own. No institution that has celebrated graiti in recent years — like the Museum of Contemporary Art in

Los Angeles or the Museum of the City of New York — would allow its own premises to be defaced for even one minute.

Next, the question “When does graiti become art?” is meaningless. Graiti is always vandalism. By deinition, it is committed without permission on another person’s property, in an adolescent display of entitlement. Whether particular viewers ind any given piece of graiti artistically compelling is irrelevant. Graiti’s most salient characteristic is that it is a crime.

Furthermore, John Lindsay, the progressive New York politician who served as mayor from 1966 to 1973, declared war on graiti in 1972. He understood that graiti signaled that informal social controls and law enforcement had broken down in New York’s public spaces, making them vulnerable to even greater levels of disorder and law­breaking. A 2008 study from the Netherlands has shown that physical disorder and

vandalism have a contagious effect, confirming the “broken windows theory.” 

In conclusion, there is nothing “progressive” about allowing public amenities to be defaced by graffiti; anyone who can avoid a graiti-bombed park or commercial thoroughfare will do so, since tagging shows that an area is dominated by vandals

who may be involved in other crimes as well.

What is the author's overall view of graffiti's impact on public spaces?

• • A) It enhances community art.

• • B) It signals a breakdown of social order.

• • C) It encourages artistic expression.

• • D) It has no significant impact.

• • E) It increases tourism.

In the phrase, "If your home were tagged...", what does "your" refer to?

• • A) The author's home.

• • B) The reader's home.

• • C) The mayor's home.

• • D) Any public building.

• • E) The Museum of Contemporary Art.

Which of the following is a synonym for "defaced" as used in the text?

• • A) Decorated

• • B) Enhanced

• • C) Vandalized

• • D) Restored

• • E) Painted.

Which of the following is an antonym for "permission" in the context of the text?

• • A) Approval

• • B) Consent

• • C) Authorization

• • D) Prohibition

• • E) Agreement.

Furthermore, John Lindsay, the progressive New York politician who served as mayor from 1966 to 1973, declared war on graiti in 1972. He understood that graiti signaled that informal social controls and law enforcement had broken down in New York’s public spaces, making them vulnerable to even greater levels of disorder and law­breaking. A 2008 study from the Netherlands has shown that physical disorder and vandalism have a contagious effect, confirming the “broken windows theory.” 

What concept does the 2008 Netherlands study support?

• • A) The value of public art.

• • B) The "broken windows theory."

• • C) The artistic nature of graffiti.

• • D) The importance of urban renewal.

• • E) The benefits of artistic freedom.

Why do institutions that showcase graffiti not allow their own buildings to be tagged?

• • A) They support freedom of expression.

• • B) They recognize the artistic value of all graffiti.

• • C) They maintain a distinction between art and vandalism.

• • D) They encourage more people to do graffiti.

• • E) They want to sell more art.

Graiti is Always Vandalism

Anyone who glorifies graffiti needs to answer one question: If your home were tagged during the night without your consent, would you welcome the new addition to your décor or would you immediately call a painter, if not the police? 

First of all, graiti is something that one celebrates, if one is juvenile enough to do so, when it shows up on someone else’s property but never on one’s own. No institution that has celebrated graiti in recent years — like the Museum of Contemporary Art in

Los Angeles or the Museum of the City of New York — would allow its own premises to be defaced for even one minute.

Next, the question “When does graiti become art?” is meaningless. Graiti is always vandalism. By deinition, it is committed without permission on another person’s property, in an adolescent display of entitlement. Whether particular viewers ind any given piece of graiti artistically compelling is irrelevant. Graiti’s most salient characteristic is that it is a crime.

Furthermore, John Lindsay, the progressive New York politician who served as mayor from 1966 to 1973, declared war on graiti in 1972. He understood that graiti signaled that informal social controls and law enforcement had broken down in New York’s public spaces, making them vulnerable to even greater levels of disorder and law­breaking. A 2008 study from the Netherlands has shown that physical disorder and

vandalism have a contagious effect, confirming the “broken windows theory.” 

In conclusion, there is nothing “progressive” about allowing public amenities to be defaced by graffiti; anyone who can avoid a graiti-bombed park or commercial thoroughfare will do so, since tagging shows that an area is dominated by vandals

who may be involved in other crimes as well.

According to the text, what is the "most salient characteristic" of graffiti?

• • A) Its artistic creativity.

• • B) Its potential for social commentary.

• • C) Its illegal nature.

• • D) Its ability to beautify urban spaces.

• • E) Its historical significance