Excellent post, thanks for all those references. Regarding your last sentence, you're right in terms of the actual product, but in art (or at least modern art) it's often the intention behind the product that is important part. In that sense there is a huge difference between what a homeless person does and what a "white person" does, (as you describe it.)
The homeless person is making a mess, the white person is making a statement.
^^^ I'll just put an aside here: I know you were being hyperbolic, but these are obviously quite bad choices; realistically, the homeless person just needs a place to put things. You really want "vandals" and "artists" rather than "homeless people" and "white people."
That said, it simply begins the whole discussion on whether art should be objectively pleasant/obvious/etc... "what is art", we could go on and on.
But I think it's quite well understood these days that there is a lot more to a piece of art than what is in front of your eyes. The message, background, and intention are everything.
As I said though, calling them vandals and artists is the interesting part, since as you point out, the whole street art movement deliberately blurs the line.
The homeless person is making a mess, the white person is making a statement.
^^^ I'll just put an aside here: I know you were being hyperbolic, but these are obviously quite bad choices; realistically, the homeless person just needs a place to put things. You really want "vandals" and "artists" rather than "homeless people" and "white people."
That said, it simply begins the whole discussion on whether art should be objectively pleasant/obvious/etc... "what is art", we could go on and on.
But I think it's quite well understood these days that there is a lot more to a piece of art than what is in front of your eyes. The message, background, and intention are everything.
As I said though, calling them vandals and artists is the interesting part, since as you point out, the whole street art movement deliberately blurs the line.