Originally Posted by nycindie
It's usually really ugly and poorly executed, so I generally hate it. Once in a great while I will see something that is clever or well-done by someone talented, and I can admire the creativity, but it still is vandalizing someone's property and that just isn't right. If you pay a mortgage on a building, you don't want some idiot coming along and wrecking it with paint. If a landlord commissions it, that's fine, but it is still usually pretty ugly even then.
That's part of where I think the double standard is (not with you specifically but with the idea that you're vandalizing someone's property and that makes street art wrong).
There are giant billboards along virtually every street in the country. It's virtually impossible to escape these monolithic images. I dislike them, they very clearly have an impact on the public, and they're often on public property. Yet no one really seems to want to decry them as being blights.
Why is it acceptable to have a giant advertisement on a public street but not street art?
As far as it being ugly, I agree that there's a lot of pieces I really dislike but I prefer to see tags that I may like not rather than plain walls or advertisements.