I'm confused. This reads like you're trying to convince me not to do graffiti. I've never done graffiti in my life. Maybe one time I scribbled over a particularly misogynistic bathroom stall tag, or I wanted to but didn't have a Sharpie with me, I don't even remember.
Lots of graffiti sucks? I'm not advocating vandalizing the Sistine Chapel like your sibling suggested? I'm just trying to explain to grandparent why street art would be "ok with so much of Western culture", because society is just not that absolutist about private property, because things tend to be socially acceptable roughly in proportion to how harmful/harmless they are.
I didn't know the city fines property owners for not cleaning up graffiti on their property, which they obviously didn't want in the first place, that sucks. Of course I empathize. That's not the kind of graffiti I would describe as "ok with so much of Western culture" though?
I think maybe you adopted the voice of someone else in your post, then, and it didn't read in an obvious way.
> I'm sorry you think that what I did to your stuff trashed it, but I think I enhanced it/everyone else thinks I enhanced/I didn't think you cared?
> No harm no foul; like, if I set fire to your building, no one thinks that's harmless or acceptable. But if I paint something on your ugly outside wall, why would anyone be up in arms about that on your behalf?
The "I"s in there make it sound like you're very on board with destroying property, so yeah, I was definitely trying to make a case against that mindset.
I don't think it's a mindset a lot of people have. They draw subjective and somewhat arbitrary lines between "art" and "vandalism", and when legality is indeterminable, that line probably has a lot to do with "whether I think it's pretty or not".
I guess I'm not sure what kind of graffiti you're advocating for. Public murals? Those are pretty cool. But the parent you were replying to also called those out as being great, so it seemed like you were making the case for more illegal, less well-meaning forms.
It sounds like either we're misaligned on exactly what kind of thing you're talking about, or maybe we all agree that a certain very pretty, fairly legal minority is relatively harmless.. If your first comment's words aren't your actual views, I don't feel the need to talk it to death.
I'm really not advocating for anything. I was trying to explain exactly what you said: "[A lot of people] draw subjective and somewhat arbitrary lines between "art" and "vandalism", and when legality is indeterminable, that line probably has a lot to do with "whether I think it's pretty or not"."
The comment I was replying to said they didn't "get" that, so I was trying to help them imagine what someone might subjectively, arbitrarily think of tokyodude's absolutist stance. I thought it was pretty obvious I've never personally vandalized any of tokyodude's property (the "I"s were equally as rhetorical as the "you"s).
I think the way you expressed it was much clearer, though.
Lots of graffiti sucks? I'm not advocating vandalizing the Sistine Chapel like your sibling suggested? I'm just trying to explain to grandparent why street art would be "ok with so much of Western culture", because society is just not that absolutist about private property, because things tend to be socially acceptable roughly in proportion to how harmful/harmless they are.
I didn't know the city fines property owners for not cleaning up graffiti on their property, which they obviously didn't want in the first place, that sucks. Of course I empathize. That's not the kind of graffiti I would describe as "ok with so much of Western culture" though?