>>1563979>>1563980>>1563982>>1563983>>1563984>>1563986most of these are "tolerable" aesthetically, but that does not mean they qualify as good, when evaluated as art.
the bathos of the "ripped paper" and other "high-concept" graffiti is a trifle, which as an amusement, works only once.
repeated, it becomes obnoxious.
"ad nauseam" is a concept which exists for a reason.
art should not aspire to function like societal soma, providing the instant gratification of a cheap joke or "visual pun", but provide, rather than a moments pleasure, something capable of lasting, and worth preserving, for eternity.
graffiti is not and can not, by its very nature, be opposed to, or function as "politcal protest" against capitalism.
as "art" and as phenomenon, graffiti is founded on exactly the same transient, disposable, self-promoting consumer culture as capitalism.
>advertsnice strawman.
point to a single comment in this thread where any (anti graffiti) post has defended advertisements of any sort.
yet nearly half of the comments defending graffiti have defended it as advertising the artists name (and ego), as advertising the artists inconsequential and vacuous "politics", or as the IRL equivalent of disposable twitter messages to the artists "friends".
>>1564011no, it isnt ugly.
yet painting over windows is inconsiderate to the commuters who want to be able to look out, or have natural light in the trains.
>>1569769natural environments are preferable to artificial ones.
moss, lichen, and ivy growing over concrete is preferrable to paint.
the natural rust or decay of bare concrete, the patina of grime, spiderwebs of fissures, filling up with dandelions, wild mustard, or thistles, is (arguably) beautiful.
at any rate, it's better by far than any graffiti can be.
but "sterility" is much preferable to open defecation, needles, and other social rot.
