Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Some angry residents in Atlanta took it upon themselves to paint over this commissioned public mural on the grounds that they decided it was "Satanic", and were therefor offended by it.
Who are the criminals here-- the people who had permission to paint the wall, or the ones who defaced it with no permission?
Is it ok for anyone to alter a public wall because they just don't like what is on it? How about if you think that a blank, plywood wall is an eyesore? Can you therefore just go ahead and change it (paint on it) without permission? Or should you first get proper permission?
What's the difference between these two scenarios?
I'm not saying that I am necessarily in favor of "street art"-- I find a lot of it to be ego-driven. But there is no denying it's influence on the contemporary art world and popular culture, and the fact that it can be an exciting, expressive, thought-provoking medium.
Where do you draw the line?
Read the original article here.