> Graffiti, fundamentally, is a defacement of public property

Both wrong. Neither is defacement the point nor doing it to public property. Fundamentally it's a visual art form and whether that's on private or public property is insubstantial.

It's surely intervoven with anarchic protest and that's where the defacement angle comes in. Similarly, public property as a symbol of the state that is rejected plays often a role. Though that's ironic too since if the "artist" comes from a left-leaning anarchic background then damaging public goods is kinda counterproductive, as opposed to private property of the rich who are the more usual target for symbolizing oppression of the poor.

▲

andai 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Reciting ancient Roman graffiti

https://youtu.be/-qSETCKlzQQ

▲

socalgal2 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I will be happy to come over your place and destroy your stuff by adding my graffiti "art" to it

	▲	teiferer 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I didn't say it's not damaging. But that's a side effect, not the goal.

▲

vortegne 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Both statements are wrong. But yours is wrong-er. You are thinking of street art. Or just spray paint art. The whole point of graffiti is to "get up". If you don't know what getting up is, you should not be espousing any opinions on what graffiti is and isn't.

	▲	teiferer 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In fact, I'm aware what it means and don't see how that and what I wrote are contradictory. Though not everybody around here may know, so how about you educate folks instead of being condescending? Getting your tag up somewhere can surely be considered art. It's fine if you personally don't, but you are not speaking for others. Nor is it clear why you feel entitled to explain to me what I am supposedly thinking.