Maybe people use graffitti and walls to express themselves
where and when they cannot do it otherwise - name the Berlin
Wall and -sometimes why not- the walls of our wealthy
civilized (?) western world, which will not listen anyone under a
level of income. 
Of  course, another thing is littering and hooliganism or an
outdated sense of romanticism (that is what happens
here in Spain with SOME , only SOME, 
anarchists, comunists, socialists, even fascists - populists in 
general;  with enough money to publish regular newspapers,
but still with the idea of "shattering" the pillars of society, althought
those pillars are those of a good piece of architecture).
But before dismissing graffiti, please read it. Maybe someone is
asking for freedom.
----------
Nbasso§AOL.COM wrote:
>
> Sorry for the long title Museum Ler's but I couldn't help but feel compelled
> to respond to several of the postings I saw this evening.  Might I add too
> that the graffiti discussion, in some of the postings, is quite troubling to
> me.  I am not trying to offend any members of the list, however, it seems to
> me that making judgements which imply that  high and low art and good and bad
> graffiti exist are quite problematic for a variety of reasons, all of which I
> will not elaborate upon now except to say that they promote the idea that
> there is a high and low culture and they support hierarchies in which I
> myself do not believe.  Furthermore, judging art on the basis of quality
> seems to lead to nothing but the further promotion of hierarchical structures
> that many "artists" are reacting against.  In my opinion, individuals who
> react negatively to graffiti (as well as art that they call "bad") either do
> not understand it, or are afraid of its implications.
>

I also do not want to offend anyone, but I felt compelled to respond
to the position of good art and bad art.  Of course, art is subjective
depending on the viewers preferences.  However, I do believe you can
judge the quality of art and it has nothing to do with culture.  My
subjective qualification of art would be based on whether the art is
realistic or causes some type of emotional response.  I am the owner
of a museum exhibit fabrication studio and therefore have hired a
staff of artists.  When we hire artists we of course look at their
portfolio and we typically give them some type of test.  For instance,
we have asked them to look at this piece of tree bark and quickly
match the colors and reproduce it on canvas.  You would be surprised
how many graduates of art cannot even come close to doing this.
Obviously, I have some personal frustration and therefore my opinion
is biased, but if an artist does not have a talent beyond what I can
do (I'm a business person not an artist) then I consider it poor art.
Additionally, everyone has different preferences on what type of art
they place on the walls of their home.  Once again I prefer extremely
realistic art.  I think quality would be based on what the majority of
people quantify it to be.  That is why there are successful commercial
artists and unsuccessful.

Betty Brennan