Don't quit your day job, Mr. "Artist"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011702575_graffitiside26m.html

Executive summary:

A seattle man works odd jobs so that he can pursue his "art form": graffiti. He does this because he sees beauty in graffiti, but also because he thinks any entry into this art form has more impact on society than a blank wall. He has taken fine art classes (painting, etc.) and travels the world to leave his art on public spaces. He does not paint on private property or churches, only public property.

Opinion:

What right does this man have to be the sole determiner of what art will be featured on a public space? It belongs to "the public," not him. The article does say that he has had brushes with the law, but does he care that graffiti has been shown to increase crime, or that taxpayers must pay to have his graffiti removed from public spaces? Of course, the big question I want to ask him is this:

Do you really paint graffiti because it is "social commentary" or because deep down, you know that your artistic talents are so poor that no one, public or private, will pay you for your art?

I think I know the answer to that. I don't think he's willing to admit it.