Hey, control freak, what realistic solution do you propose?

I mean, one way to look at it is just that graffiti is just... fine, really. It's not generally a huge deal in the scheme of things.

And this attitude is why there is so much of it.

Why don’t you call it what it is: destruction of public property?

Factually, the property isn't destroyed. Beyond that, I think the street art often enhances it and otherwise is easily ignored.

You may see it differently, but what you see isn't "what it is", it's just your perspective.

In Portugal you can see poetry being embedded in graffiti which is awesome, TBH

At some point someone made me realise that almost anything that can be said about graffiti can also be said about outdoor advertising.

One is vandalism, which is a crime, and one is not.

There, we have at least one delta now.

If it were up to me, billboards WOULD be a crime - and in some places that take pride in their land's beauty, they are!

Another difference is that one of them is intentionally designed to capture my attention, usually while I'm driving, to try and get me to fork over my money. So that's another delta.

I don't love graffiti, but I do hate outdoor advertisements.

I much prefer graffiti to advertising. Sure, I wouldn't mind if amateur tags disappeared, but more intricate tags and mural-like designs that prop up from more experienced graffiti artists are something I enjoy, and they are part of what give the city it's vibe.

You must live in Paris.

That's why I said "almost". But when discussing whether one should be the crime (or whether the other shouldn't), it's hard to go beyond one makes people decide to buy something and the other doesn't. Which of course also invites its own discussion about its value.

> It always baffles me that people are in such a defeated state of mind that graffiti is just simply accepted and seemingly nothing is done about it.

As usual, the answer is found by examining assumptions: 1) It's somehow bad, and 2) People strongly want it removed. (And by accepting those two assumptions as true, and it's also true that the street art remains, that argument infers despair.)

I and many people don't think it's Bad (avoiding a specific definition, an endless discussion). I don't mean it's always Good or never Bad, but generally IMHO it ranges from easily ignored to decent to some really inspiring stuff.

And I find it generally inspiring that some kids have the spirit, creativity, initiative, and determination to do it; to express themselves and not be suppressed by society. Adults have so much agency; it's great to see kids seize some, and in a harmless way (they aren't injuring people, risking anything, etc.). I see the suppression of graffiti as telling kids to be 'seen and not heard'. People embrace billionaires who break rules and then kill and impovrish on a mass scale; all these kids are doing is painting something.

I'd almost advocate that kids have free reign to paint public property (that would seem to get out of control, and any announced limit may be an invitation to break it). It's their city too, and adults should have to live with what the kids have to say. (Still - how could that work? Any undecorated or unfinished surface?)

I understand you may not agree; we need to find a balance.

You're right, but let’s be honest, most of “spray painting” is just tagging. Even as a kid I found big spray painted murals “cool”, but thought tagged places as “ran down”. I met a guy a few years ago who told stories about spray painting large murals in underpasses, but gave up when others started to tag over his creations.

I obviously don’t have a solution to this, but it’s hard to argue how spray painting is net good even for kids.