Illustrated City Part 6
I try to examine the psychological and social impact of graffiti through urban photography. Someone responded to a previous post (that I’ve since deleted) regarding the use of personal property without permission for tagging. He or she suggested that people need to reevaluate what personal property means, and to whom . . . fascinating.
Back to the wall of this parking lot on Hamilton’s Hughson Street, I’m subtly reminded of how resilient nature can be. Left long enough, nature will find a way to blow away, wash away, decay, grind up, overgrow, knock down or outright consume most of what we humans design and build to withstand the elements.
Muralists, who usually have permission to produce artwork on property that isn’t legally theirs, typically want their work to remain for as long as possible. I imagine it’s the same for graffiti artists. I wonder if the creator of this organic looking work realized at the time of its production that he or she was picking a fight with nature that they couldn’t win in the long run.
So, if a tagger, ethical graffiti artist or muralist left their mark on this wall that they and the legal owner considers theirs to do with at will, and nature takes over, then who’s the ultimate owner of the wall?
By the way, the vines are a nice touch!