Question

As money is put into the development of cities, and buildings become old with the erection of new ones, the urban art scene is provided with additional concrete for placement of expression. Laws are binding however, and graffiti artists are continually being fined, amongst other repercussions, for the way they choose to express themselves on abandoned buildings, dirty bridges, etc. So when is it ok to get your message across on public property? It may be understandable for an artist to get fined when their expression leaks onto new material. When the city has put money into the erection of a new building, that building may be an expression of the architect who designed and/or constructed it, and when is it ever ok for one artist infringe upon another’s work?

At some point however, old work can become new, it can become more appreciated by a developing society and turn into a message of currency to be understood and not ignored.
I don’t believe that artists should be punished for turning something, such as an abandoned building, that is taken for granted (or in this case granite) into something that can be appreciated or at least raise some sort of question in the mind of a person that on a regular day might have walked right by it.

Then again maybe it is the potential of being caught doing something illegal that validates the point the artist is trying to make?