With the exception of gang related graffiti and despite the fact that not every person may agree, I personally believe that graffiti is art for the people by the people; art which can represent a community’s culture and identity. The difference between graffiti and an artistic mural on any given wall is the acceptance the public and other private sectors can have towards it. For example, several areas in East Los Angeles have murals of various culturally influential people and inspirational depictions of positive representations of the interconnected community. Graffiti art is obviously expressive and depictive of urban cultures. Like traditional art, specific styles and artist appeal to certain demographics and provoke various emotions and feelings from different people. The issue making this matter controversial is not necessarily the content of the graffiti piece but rather the identified “vandalism” on public and/or private property. Landscape designs as well as city plans could better include the art form that is graffiti into the communities and potentially limit this conflict. If certain areas are designated for graffiti art in public spaces then the need to vandalize unwanted areas with graffiti would decrease. Such areas like Venice beach which has designed areas for individuals to express their art have seen a shift in the perception on graffiti art. Although the culture which has been created in Venice Beach may be difficult to duplicate in other areas and with other people, graffiti art should be more closely considered in any area since the people living within any particular area would be able to portray their unique culture. Openness to graffiti might not only bridge different ideas and cultures but it could also display the various cultures within a city.