There's obviously nothing wrong with selling your art - only an idiot with a trust fund would tell you otherwise. But it's confusing to know how far you should take it.
Graffiti's always been a temporary art form. You make your mark and then they scrub it off.
I don't know why people are so keen to put the details of their private life in public; they forget that invisibility is a superpower.
I love the way capitalism finds a place - even for its enemies.
Should graffiti be judged on the same level as modern art? Of course not: It's way more important than that.
You live in the city and all the time there are signs telling you what to do and billboards trying to sell you something.
It's great, I guess, when your paintings are hanging up in a museum.
All graffiti is low-level dissent, but stencils have an extra history. They've been used to start revolutions and to stop wars.
I wouldn't want to be remembered as the guy who contaminated a perfectly legitimate form of protest art with money and celebrities.
I give away thousands of paintings for free.
I started painting graffiti in the classic New York style of big letters and characters but I was never very good at it.
For un-subscribe please check the mail footer.