Vandalism is the act of defacing something for reasons that count from anywhere between political protest to intentional harm and beyond. Vandalism comes in many forms, but one factor that can be written as a common element among those forms is the recognizable feature of there being something present or noticeable in regards to the site of vandalism and the place also where it occurred. Typically, it is ascribed to the status of criminal behavior, but focal points can be placed on how the act of vandalism requires a level of inspection which is not always present in other forms of criminal behavior. Vandalism can be writing or painting something on a surface that is not meant to facilitate or house that medium or material. Vandalism can be 'defacing' an audio recording in the way of wrongfully altering its message and, maybe even more so, sharing the wrongful alteration as either the true version or the openly shared and vandalized version of the original. The purpose often, in the act of vandalism, is to not only deface the property but also see if someone can recognize the defaced property from the original. This can be misinterpreted as copyright infringement, but vandals, as they are called (and also vandalists, the same), do not have this intent in mind within their pathology of criminology. The genuine focus is found in the above wherein there is the intent to either deface the property and/or see if another person - a vandal, vandalist, or not - is able to recognize the vandalism that has been done. Different criminal intentions arise from this pathology, such as using the information that is ascertained to take advantage of the persons who could be recognized as not knowing the difference between the original version, or status, of something, and the corresponding vandalized version. Depending on the degree to which the person would be ignorant of the difference between the two 'truths', they could succumb to fates that would be murderous, even, by no stretch of analysis or intention.
Vandalism occurs in many forms, but the profundity of its variant versions and interpretations is found in the fact that something has to be recognized as property first before it can be accounted for as a site of vandalism. Otherwise, it would be rightfully registered within a wroughtly doctoral ascription as artful expression. Vandalism requires the recognition of property. Without the integral dimensionality of ownership or accountability being present, there is no ability to starkly ascribe criminality to acts of "vandalism", given that someone or something would need to be responsible for the property or site "defaced" before the recognizable act of vandalism can be rightly titled or termed as being applicable. The implications that this principle carries in human sciences is one that measures out along stringent mathematical lines of interpretation, but the complexity does not fall away when considering the suppositional diversity and ethics of humanity and human principle. The propagable dynamics pan into how the whole of what would otherwise be left to simple material evaluation can become implicated, emphasized, and complex by incorporating a human element. A person is never to be viewed as property, but the murderous sentiment of vandalism is one that can be found naturally present in ongoing human discussion. Is 'vandalism' murder to a human being? Is there a science to murder? Do the murderous sentiments and intentions of vandalism have an analogous frame within human principles and contexts considering the fact that vandalism is something that pertains solely to material goods and resources? The answer to all of the above is 'yes'.
No comments:
Post a Comment