In article , PeterN wrote:

PeterN:
Here is some really good grafitti.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/five%20pointz%20partial.jpg

Sandman:
Not really. Everything between the windows was mediocre at best.
The photo is low res so it's haerd to see any detail, but the red
and circle ones on the lower wall has some potential, but doesn't
look very good from afar.

Prior to change of ownership, grafitti areas on that building was
reserved for recognized grafitti artists. You and I may not like
some of the images. Indeed I do not like a lot of the images either,
but they are recognized as art.

And art can be bad art. Calling it "art" doesn't change anything. I agree
that real graffiti *is* art, but that doesn't mean that it's good art.

PeterN:
The above is one of the last pictures that was taken. To avoid
litigation over historic designation, the eveving of the day I
took that pivture, the owner whitewashed entire building.

Sandman:
You should google "Puppet", a Swedish (from my hometown) graffiti
artist whose name is Daniel.

Here is one of his really early work (1989), from the Västerås
industrial port:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Puppet©1989.jpg

Obviously, later work is a lot nicer.

I would not like that image hanging on my wall

Uh, of course not. It's graffiti, it's purpose is not to be on anyone's
wall.

but I recognize it as art. Fortunately, there is no one artbiter of which
art is better than others.

Other than your own. Plus, there's consensus.



--
Sandman[.net]