Back

@stevenlawson that’s a talented artist.

@piratero On what's left of a neglected, derelict building? Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree. Have a good day.

@stevenlawson the state of the property doesn’t matter. This is someone’s property and that’s enough for the space to be respected.

And bo, we don’t agree to disagree. It’s wrong.

@piratero Well, I disagree, and so does the city of Glasgow which not only turns a blind eye to such things but officially sanctions such public paintings - do a Google search on Glasgow's street art trail. And given the number of boosts and favourites this post received - which frankly has surprised me - you seem to be in the minority.

@stevenlawson I’m not interested in a majority. If the Glasgow favors these acts then it’s an invitation. That’s very different from transgressing private property.

It’s easier if you replace one thing with another. It’s the principle of the thing. If the building were the body of a woman, does having your way without her invitation become ok because you scribble a tattoo on her? The “art” (vandalism) demeans the craft.

My building. My choice.

This is vandalism.

@piratero Woah, that's quite a leap from street art to sexual violence, not sure I would have made that comparison. There's clearly a difference between officially sanctioned street art, which is often in prominent, public places, and someone displaying wit and craft to brighten up a grimy, litter-strewn derelict corner of an equally grimy car park so that someone like me walks away with a smile on their face having discovered it. Anyway, thanks for your opinions.

@stevenlawson it is not a leap. It is still a crime and not art. The structure in logic is the same, the penalty may be different because the building is not a person but the principal remains. Have a nice day.