Vandalizing the “Vandalism”

Susan from Artcrimes emailed me this story. A new trend in New York is to vandalize, vandals. Once popular, successful graffiti artists are being attacked as tools of the system and subsequent vandals are “splashing” over their works that have become customarily accepted.
Also, you might have noticed that some of my old posts in the graffiti category have gone missing. They’re still on the net but not logged in the blog. I don’t know why and I don’t know how to fix it. So here are some favorite links on the subject:
My old draft on Artcrimes
The Artcrimes graffiti resource page
The graffiti debate from the Mises Blog
The graffiti debate from the Austrian Forum
Literati presentation

Another interesting aspect of graffiti

This footage makes a strong case for graffiti as art rather than vandalism. The artists paints over the same space over and over again – they don’t express a utility for filling up wall space to gain fame and recognition. The video medium and sites like YouTube have provided a less invasive way for graffiti artists to express their art.
Addendum: This brief in New York Times Magazine pushes the point that competition and discovery lead to less invasive forms of graffiti art. This guy actually creates art by removing existing paint rather than spraying new. This is quite the taboo in the graffiti community, unless the quality of the new piece is competitive with the old. I looked on google images to find pictures of the guy’s work, to no avail. If anyone has any luck please let me know.
Hat tip to my Dad for the reference.

Graffiti paper accepted for publication

I’m pleased to announce that my paper “A Legal and Economic Analysis of Graffiti,” co-authored with Walter Block has been accepted for publication at Humanomics.
Abstract: A case for the de-criminalization of graffiti is made, based on the existence of an unjust government, and predicated on private property rights. A distinction is made between artistic trespass, or vandalism, on the one hand, which we claim can be undertaken only on private property, and, on the other, graffiti, which in our view can only occur on public property. If the government that claims ownership of the latter is an illicit one, then graffiti can reasonably be interpreted as a justified attack on it, or rebellion.