User:Soudeaforbes/sandbox

Faith of Graffiti work
Copyedits to "Reception" section

''Because FOG both glorified the graffiti artist and seemed to advocate for graffiti as an "indigenous art form" that should be "celebrated", Mailer's essay was controversial at its first publication and might be even more so today. FOG received less critical attention compared to other publications by Mailer. This omission might be due to Mailer's interest in his own fame and opinions rather than graffiti itself. Generally, its reviews are mixed to negative.''

''Corinne Robins writes in The New York Times that Mailer did a disservice to graffiti by using the work as a platform for his own political gain and to highlight the flaws in the current administration. Monroe Beardsley criticizes Mailer for romanticizing the graffiti artist and comparing them to Renaissance artists. He claims Mailer placed too much emphasis on the artist and graffiti as a social statement, and Robins says Mailer fails to comment on individual graffiti, which is an injustice to the art.''

''Claes Oldenburg came out as a supporter of graffiti art in 1973, claiming the art brought brightness and excitement to an otherwise "gray" and industrialized city. Beardsley agrees: though graffiti may be a criminal act, in some cases helps improve the aesthetic of the otherwise bland architecture.''

-rewriting for clarity/flow

-changing verb tense in accordance with Wikipedia standards Writing better articles

FOG was considered controversial when originally published because it seemed to glorify graffiti artists and advocate for graffiti to be considered as an "indigenous art form" that should be celebrated. Compared to other works by Mailer, FOG received less attention from critics. This omission might be due to Mailer's interest in his own fame and opinions rather than graffiti itself. Generally, its reviews are mixed to negative.

A New York Times review by Corrine Robins claimed that Mailer did a disservice to graffiti by using the work as a platform for his own political gain and to highlight the flaws in the contemporary administration.[citation] Robins wrote that Mailer failed to comment on individual graffiti, which is an injustice to the art. Similarly, Monroe Beardsley claimed Mailer placed too much emphasis on the artist and graffiti as a social statement. Beardsley also criticizes Mailer for romanticizing the graffiti artists and comparing them to Renaissance artists.