This probably isn’t funny for the people who have to pay for it to be cleaned up. Why doesn’t the “artist” do everyone a favour and paint something pleasant which people might enjoy. It would be more of a challenge for the council to whitewash something which has value, so they might chose not to. Whether they do or not, the artist wins. Question is, is he capable of that or does his talent stretch only as far as being a vandal with a commentary on life somewhere below Banksy’s?
This reminds me of a George Steinbrenner story from the 70s where George had his workers paint over the graffiti on the stadium on a daily basis. When questioned why since it was only going to get more graffiti on it the next night, George stated “because we can afford more paint then them”…
k3vin, I’m not sure if there’s a specific bit you disagree with, bit my gripe is that someone would mess up a public space to satisfy their own ego and make no attempt to please or amuse folk. Some, such as that which you linked to, are likely (I expect) to lift the spirits of passers by but others of his, especially the underpass strike me as attempts to antagonise or simply… http://www.flickr.com/photos/mobstr/4275198066/
that’s supposed to be art? i wouldn’t complain if it were a graffiti that required some effort and skill to create. just throwing some buckets of paint at a wall and spraying a text using a stencil is just lame. it’s as lame as tagging stuff with a stylo.