急：翻译，谢谢~~

英语

Anthropologist Mary Douglas, in its classic "pure and dangerous", he pointed out that the so-called dirty and taboo, has never been the existence of the state of nature, but only a relative social judgment. All were regarded as desecration or defaced concept, behavior and things are just because of their demonstrated against or confuse the classification system, in other words, is more but they "go beyond the line, which was ambiguous things", it has become a mainstream system want very much to exclude "dangerous." The law is often used to maintain this line tool.

Accordingly, when multinational brands and the local government to make use of graffiti's "cultural capital" (or even its commercialization trafficking), these wall games on the culture and the arts were incorporated into the performance and aesthetic areas, and cease to be regarded as dirty sewage, so even with the day-to-day sacred buildings in the space (such as monuments) coexistence sound, but the contrary, if the graffiti is not monitoring and regulatory training, has become a "go beyond and vague things", it will be defined as sabotage and risk management, to protect the public interest on the name of the law used to punish exclude.
We have to ask: who has the power, how to define what behavior is the beautification of urban space, or tarnished? Since accepted or prohibited cognitive boundaries and classification logic is from "society" by the decision, in respect of any member of society has the right to personal thoughts prospective subcontractors. A progressive administrative team, in the face of specific aesthetic experience and innovative ideas of the culture, there is no hurry to use the law to maintain grounded aesthetic order, or reproduction mainstream tastes, but should try to let themselves become a communication interface, as if running water continuously injected into the cultural dialogue possible.