When I pass an unused building that has been sitting empty for years and is crumbling to bits in disrepair covered in graffiti - I see 2 things.
First is, the reminder that how irresponsible the owners are to let it get in such a condition in the first place without making any effort to maintain it or re-use the building, which then becomes an embarrassing eyesore for the public as a consequence.
Second is, the big effort the graffiti artists have made to have their creative work be seen, which has a similar effect to people signing a friends plastercast as a "get well soon" gesture.
Therefore the equation is - the people in the second example are far superior to the people in the first example.
And yet, the general perception is that property owners are the superior ones and the graffiti artists end up criminalized.
So why not criminalize the incompetent property owners who neglect their buildings and visually destroy the look of their local landscape?
GG
No comments:
Post a Comment