« design can do more | Main | the fabulous ruins of Detroit »



I think graffiti, in so far as it improves its immediate environment, ceases to be graffiti and becomes art. But improvement is ambiguous. tags, for instance, are essentially the same as urinating in the street. Sure, it marks the local environment as someone's 'property', but it degrades the tagger to the level of an animal, and not a very clever one either. So that's my argument against graffiti: when it fails to attain the level of art, it actually damages both its environment and its creator.

The comments to this entry are closed.