>>3341390>The same reason scanning a document isn't art.The guy you're responding to was talking about photography, not art. You seem to be ignoring that point in the last two responses to justify your opinion
>>3341454>Not only are they an eyesore, they also cost society millions because the taxpayers have to pay for cleaning crew to remove them.Only true in specific cases where the law is retarded- typically UK, USA and some eastern asian countries
Banksy, while not my thing, is a good example of graffiti most people would consider art
>>3341459>Because the majority is talentless attention seekersUh, that's pretty much the point. As it is for photography and painting
Graffiti is 99% garbage but so are the arguments against it in this thread
