A reader asks Matt whether he considers grafitti as valid an art form as more traditional artforms exhibited in museums.

Matt responds:

Have I seen grafitti art that I liked?  Yes.  Have I seen art in museums that I liked?  Yes.

Which do I like better?  That question is like, “Do I like hot dogs or pepperoni sandwiches on rye?”  It depends on whether I’m at a ballgame or sitting under a tree!

Sometimes I’m in the mood for one and sometimes the other.  It doesn’t make one better than the other; it’s just the way we perceive it.

Grafitti is dictated by the art-maker.  Here it is—look at it or don’t—but it’s going to be there until someone comes along and paints over it or the rain destroys it.

Art in a museum is selected by a curator.  Therefore there is a third-party influence.  Does that mean the museum is the great taste-maker that annoints an artist for all time?  Or does it mean the curator is just the taste of one person, and it can change with the next curator?

The grafitti can change if the building is torn down or the rain washes it away.

One is deliberate; the other is inevitable.

Matt