Graffiti Art Ignores Reality

Banksy, a world renowned graffiti artist, has hit Detroit with a mural left on a wall at the old Packard plant on the near east side. A local artists group has moved the section of wall to their hovel, vowing to preserve and display it. All along, issues of private property and trespass go unanswered.

The group who took the mural, the 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios, believes that graffiti art, or at least the art of this shadowy Banksy figure (he/she/they/it is apparently protecting their privacy, which is ironic considering their vandalism) must be protected no matter what the circumstances.

Setting aside arguments about street art needing to stay where it was originally or it loses meaning (even though they still beg questions of criminality) the taking of personal property not yours, even those things abandoned such as old factories, remains ignored by the so called preservationists. Does vandalism require protection?

Only in the minds of the fringe elements of society who take delight in thumbing their noses at the mainstream. Criminal acts are criminal acts, and declaring them art cannot morally save them. Indeed, it gives us a window into the mind of the modern artist, who believes that art is, well, whatever he says it is, and once said, deserving of societal protection and sanction.

In a pig's eye. Such an attitude is arrogance and, when put into action, subject to prosecution. At that point, give them a brush and let them paint the interior of their prison.