Blog 3- Vandals or Visionaries?

I agree in part when the article states, "the autonomist can recognize that a given artistic technique is destructive or non destructive, but the destructiveness of the technique cannot figure in the aesthetic evaluation of the work.  I don't agree with the ethicist model that just because it may be destructive then it is aesthetically flawed.  I do think that it is not in good taste to tag buildings or write obscene and offensive things, I don't think it has any bearing on it's aesthetical properties.  In the topic of urban knitting it asks, "why damage someone's property if it is possible to create urban art without hurting anything." I agree with this statement most.  There is a town I visited in Sweden that had ancient runes all over the city.  All below them was beautiful graffiti, but it was not on or very close to the ruins.  The artists new to respect that and work around it.  It created a perfect balance of creating a statement without defiling.  I think that is what's important in street art.