John Rowland wrote:

asdf wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:25:14 -0600, Tristán White wrote:

Some graffiti is breathtakingly beautiful, some is gloriously witty
(think: Banksy). Some of it can really brighten up a boring journey,
or make a disused train a work of art.

I have never, ever, seen any graffiti on any part of any transport
system that was in any way aesthetically pleasing.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

It's terrorism. Its purpose is to let us know that we have entered a place
where the forces of disorder are winning, and law and order can't protect
us. The authorities couldn't protect the train from being vandalised, and
they can't protect us from being robbed, raped or murdered. Its aim is to
make us afraid. Graffiti doesn't have the potential or even the aim of
making the lives of the downtrodden materially better, and so is not a
defensible political act.

I disagree with that analysis. I don't think those who do graffiti have
that in mind - I think that reflects your mindset rather than theirs.

Note that I do go along with the notion that graffiti can lead an area
to have a somewhat malevolent atmosphere to it, at least to an extent.
Of course how perception and how much is reality interweave in such a
case is an interesting question - some would just say that perception
is reality.

I *really* disagree with your use of the word terrorism, it just sounds
like you're jumping on the bandwagon, using the term for shock value.
Poor show.