As a property owner, though, I want to keep my building clean and grafitti free. Nevertheless I believe that there is a place for street art and that is in derelict buildings or unkept industrial areas – as long as the owners don’t complain.

This is a very interesting discussion for me – and I don’t want to sound dissident at all – or “shitting” on anyone. The first ammendment has been used in the past, however it is a flimsy argument, at best. I believe Poster Boy even said “slavery was illegal once” which really is an interesting perspective (because it’s so completely divorced from reality – slavery and being arrested for defacement of MTA advertisements being pretty unrelated).

I’m guessing the urban street scene does benefit from the art itself, because I think some of it looks pretty cool and all together it sort of makes a good aesthetic – however, taken alone most of it really isn’t very good as a craft. It’s like kindergarten kids scribbling on rocks compared to what professional artists create. Expression is very different from art – the difference is talent.

Art is art – every piece is not for every person. Casting off anything painted on the streets as shit is lazy.

dickchicken does not equal RWK.

Bloke does not equal Barry McGee.

Street art is popular because a lot of people like it — a lot of people who may never even set foot inside a gallery. So get over yourself and accept the fact that many a person is going to have differing tastes. That’s kinda what makes art art.

For instance, they throw it in our faces. I don’t remember being given a choice in the matter between clean, glistening city walls and decaying paper rotting on buildings…

Or being asked to really consider the validity of DICKCHICKEN.