There is a case recently where a couple in Korea were being prosecuted for vandalism. Of graffiti. Because they saw paint left by it, and assumed it was open for people to paint. However, the "art" had been commissioned, and apparently the "artist" was butt-hurt by the additions to his vandalism... err.. .. "work". I guess it is ostensibly "art" if it is paid for? Who am I to say?
You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.
Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.
If you're trying to comment anonymously: You can't. Log into your Google account.
If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.
Art is in the eye of the beholder.
ReplyDeleteThere is a case recently where a couple in Korea were being prosecuted for vandalism. Of graffiti. Because they saw paint left by it, and assumed it was open for people to paint. However, the "art" had been commissioned, and apparently the "artist" was butt-hurt by the additions to his vandalism... err.. .. "work". I guess it is ostensibly "art" if it is paid for? Who am I to say?