Art vs. Vandalism

Art vs vandalism



6 comments to Art vs. Vandalism

  • Andy from Beaverton

    The Black Square was purchased for over a million dollars. Stalin hated it so much, he ordered its destruction. When I saw it in the Hermitage in 2003 I hated it and loved it too. I guess that’s why it’s called art.


  • Rik

    if they would do graffiti on the walls of the houses they own it would be art. there’s nothing artful in damaging someone elses property.

    • Sector415

      1\ Define “damage”.
      2\ How do you know if that “someone else” doesn’t disapprove?

      • Dude

        Oh. Right. So I can come over anytime and paint whatever I want on your house?

        The point is not that graffiti is not art (it can be). The point is that graffiti is almost always done on other people’s property, without permission.

        It might look pretty, but it’s still vandalism.

  • grumpy

    Reminds me of an old cartoon.

    An elderly couple are in a “Modern Art” gallery.

    The grumpy guy says to his wife, while looking at a piece, “What’s it supposed to be, and why isn’t it?”

  • eevee

    a local dairy queen painted the one side of their building with some really neat looking graffiti. The city made them repaint it because of local graffiti bylaws.

Your ad can go here!