"Kat" wrote in message
...
In message , Richard J.
writes

You're missing the point, Kat. It's not a question of whether it's nice
to
look at. The difference is that Picasso used his own canvas to paint
on,
not someone else's property without their permission. It's the total
lack
of respect for our, yes *our*, property that people find threatening.

I don't think I missed the point at all... the previous poster was
implying that because it made the world a threatening place, it was not
art. It may well be art in spite of the effect it has on you, the
viewer, and in spite of the fact that it's not on the perpetrator's own
property.

Whether you and I enjoy it or not, Graffiti is a valid form of visual
expression.

Oh dear. Criminal damage is valid? In what sense?

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)