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

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

"Kat" wrote in message
...
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?

Read the URL I posted.

I did. It talked about "the illicit nature of graffiti", and said "This
illegal expression constitutes vandalism to the larger society". There
was
also an interesting analysis of the phenomenon, but nowhere did the word
"valid" appear.


Why should it; it was my choice of word but look at the last paragraph.

"Graffiti can be understood as concrete manifestations of personal and
communal ideologies which are visually striking, insistent, and
provocative; as such, they are worthy of the continued attention of art
historians, social scientists, and policy makers alike."

Seems like a fair summing up of its validity to me...

The fact that something is worthy of attention doesn't make it valid. You
said it was "a valid form of visual expression". Frankly I find that a
shocking and irresponsible remark for an LU employee to make. Perhaps
we're using different meanings of "valid". I thought you meant legitimate
or acceptable.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)