Fortunately, you don't get to gatekeep culture! Whether some young artist wants to paint a "throwup" under a bridge, a more established artist wants to do a detailed piece uptown, a kid wants to scribble on a bench or us Indigenous folk want to throw red paint on white colonial racist settler relics (statues, churches) it's all fair game. That's what culture is. You, me nor anyone gets to decide but the person who creates it. Personal property ought to be respected - i.e. nobody should steal your bike or paint something on your front door - but the streets of a city are but a canvas for anyone. We allowed homeless and activist squatters to "occupy" spaces downtown in the same way we should permit those who wish to express something the ability to do so...free and with self-determination...not governed by abstract rules. If you have no voice, no home, no ability to govern your own self or you just want to goof off and tag things then you can do it. It'll always happen and hopefully we can rethink wasting our money on futile attempts at combating it. I would think that, since the turn of the millennium, we could have put all that money on grey paint and labour etc into more useful things like harm reduction, infrastructure, community housing etc.
Vandalism is of course, what initiated this discussion: someone smashing up a sign for no reason. That has really zero purpose that is not egotistical (they may have felt angry? were drunk? etc). It's a destructive act with no meaning...unless they were against Carl Zerh or gentrification etc. Who knows. Graffiti, regardless of intention, is usually less of an actual intentionally desructive act (When I did it, I never intended to destroy anything. When I painted a huge piece on what is now the Google building probably 15+ years ago it was not to damage it etc) and is a form of some sort of "higher" form of aesthetic expression despite the subjective perception others have of it. Unless it's some 12 year old painting a 8===D on a fence it tends to go slightly deeper, even if it's a "RIP John Doe" at a bus stop. Hope it makes sense.
Vandalism is of course, what initiated this discussion: someone smashing up a sign for no reason. That has really zero purpose that is not egotistical (they may have felt angry? were drunk? etc). It's a destructive act with no meaning...unless they were against Carl Zerh or gentrification etc. Who knows. Graffiti, regardless of intention, is usually less of an actual intentionally desructive act (When I did it, I never intended to destroy anything. When I painted a huge piece on what is now the Google building probably 15+ years ago it was not to damage it etc) and is a form of some sort of "higher" form of aesthetic expression despite the subjective perception others have of it. Unless it's some 12 year old painting a 8===D on a fence it tends to go slightly deeper, even if it's a "RIP John Doe" at a bus stop. Hope it makes sense.