Nick Walker who ever he may be rich kid or not has got you guys debating, stirring the pot and that's what Art is about, enlightenment, progression and expression.

I think that's the idea "War"; creates money for all concerned.

Always remember, the difference between Art and vandalism is MONEY.

And that stencil of the Fin de Siecle man blowing up a Banksy 'rat' is a total declaration of war. Banksy will answer and literally blow this fucker back home to Akron.

I agree with you that Chicago is a nice town. I had a great time during my visit there. It could use a bit more graffiti though.

The best part about posting here is that I live in the midwest so I can't go back to the midwest. I love NYC and Chicago and have vested interest in both.

I am above reproach.

English upperclass kids with agendas, now all grown up and with a passport.

I live in the midwest. My point is that defacing brick is expensive to clean up. The guy should pay for the cleanup costs.

That is my point.

Just as I said, you have no point. I suggest you move back to the Midwest where you belong.

"Art and vandalism are not mutually opposite terms. Art can or can not be vandalism. Vandalism can or can not be art. Your points are worthless in this regard."

stfu

"not art, it's vandalism, unless the owners agreed to have him paint their property..."

Art and vandalism are not mutually opposite terms. Art can or can not be vandalism. Vandalism can or can not be art. Your points are worthless in this regard.

If I had a big ugly brick building or garage doors I'd let this guy paint on it.

I'm no fan of graffiti, but to me this stuff is in a different league.

Still, permission should be obtained by the building owner (unless the place is obviously abandoned or already covered in tags or something).

If the building owner doesn't mind, I don't have a problem with it.

There is a difference between stuff like this and the crap that hardcore "street art" fans defend, like tags and etchings -- stuff that is just an eyesore and damages property.

It's not vandalism if the owner agreed to it. Then all is kosher. It's still crap though.

the cubic zirconium banksy.

he needs to do better than "nick walker" though. how about "wanksy"?

he's a really poor man's banksy. It looks so shitty in comparison. He's like the paris hilton to Marilyn monroe. Both blonde but in different leagues.

not art, it's vandalism, unless the owners agreed to have him paint their property...

Better vandalism than the f**cking taggers, but still vandalism.

I agree. I love this guys work. Much better than social advertising, there is a difference between graffiti and art, and this is art.

But why is no one doing this on the huge H&M walls in SoHo?

I'm torn about this. On one hand, my roots as a graffiti writer tell me that he is a biter, on the other, my training as an artist and my education in art history tell me that he is sort like Georges Braque to Banky's Picasso. Regardless of this conflict, I love his work. Would be awesome if he and Bansky could team up and bomb the city together. I bet the shithole where Matty et al. live could use some paint.

yeah fuck graffiti! lets have none at all! screw this banal vandalism! that giraffe should be painted over with a big nike swoosh covered by an ad for the gap!

graffiti, at least like this, is like advertising but without the materialist overtones. its neat, its creative, and it makes the city less boring. and to your points, i'll also agree that tagging (graffing your name) is dumb and vandalism, but come on, this stuff is good fun.