How do you interpret graffiti, differentiate it from straight vandalism?
Must vandalism be recognized as a legitimate form of civil disobedience and nonviolent dissent?
Does freedom of speech trump property rights?
Does there come a point when a street artist's craft and creativity is so powerful that the illegal work's survival is of more value than its legal sandblasting?
Or, is ugly just ugly?
I'm over-intellectualizing this. Whether you're a defender or an opponent, there's at least one small patch of common ground: Some graffiti is dumber than others.
REMEMBER: Tapes n' Tapes tonight at the Brewing Co.