View Single Post
Old 03-22-2013, 12:35 AM
Helo's Avatar
Helo Helo is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California
Posts: 279

Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
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.
I am as direct as a T-Rex with 'roid rage and about as subtle. It isn't intended to cause upset, I just prefer to talk plain. There are plenty of other people here who do the nice, polite thing much better than I can. I'm what you'd call a "problem dinner guest."

Last edited by Helo; 03-22-2013 at 12:37 AM.
Reply With Quote