versus art...
The first example of what is technically defined as "graffiti" is my idea of profanity. It is meant to exploit, offend, and degrade. However, for someone to define arts such as the second and third examples as profanity are, in my opinion, dillusional. While it is vandalism, thus can be classified as disrespectful, it is so beautiful and takes such talent that I feel it should be displayed. The question is, if graffiti artists were alloted designated space to resurrect their masterpieces would the appeal be lost? Some may act simply to be illegal. Personally, I find the legal loophole to be a good compromise between the artists and the objectors. At least, in some cases, this art would survive and offense would be avoided.
No comments:
Post a Comment