living in san antonio, i think most of us are used to seeing graffiti sprayed upon walls of old buildings, overpasses, street signs and fences. and i'm going to speak out of generalities right now and say that i assume most people would rather not have to look at it... most people see it as an eye-sore and a form of vandalism. but what about those cases when graffiti is allowed, when it's encouraged, when people get paid good money to display their artistic talents with the aid of an aersol can? what then? what changes?take for instance, this example (click here). now, normally you wouldn't find 800 year old castles covered in spray painted images, but that's exactly what happened at kelburn castle in scotland. what are your thoughts now? art, or an abomination?
4 comments:
art when invited.
vandalism when not.
as a property owner, i can think of very few instances where i'd be happy (or my property would be improved) by graffiti.
you could spray the mona lisa on my fence and i don't think i'd be thrilled.
-kyle
very, very true. still, that's a pretty cool castle...as long as i'm not living next door!
-jeff
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. It can be both Illegal and Art; it can be both Vandalism and Art.
graffiti is not just art and vandalism, but also a desire to be remembered; people like BANKSY and COPE2 wil be remembered for years to come.
-anon
Post a Comment