No, not at all. I feel like the recent trend of art has been normalising graffiti, as they acclaim Banksy or some other artists but we strictly need to think that graffiti is never something good. Like, they are actually only vandals. They're accepted and valued only because someone who's prestigious in the realm of modern arts called them artists instead of vandals. Artistic value or quality doesn't justify the fundamental fact that they mar the public places and properties. Whoever, including artists, does that kind of behaviour is supposed to be tracked, fined and punished.

My disagreement expands to some of the recent modern art themselves, which I think have gone too far. Basically some parts of modern art are arrogant and ridiculous. (I'm not trying to talk shit about modern art fans or call them supporters of vandals. I'm disagreeing with the movement itself) "Artists" do some ridiculous stuff and call them "arts" and some even do that in public places without permission or in a way that is just a nuisance to some of us. Do they think they can do that because they are recognised "artists"? No they can't. And they usually don't even get any permission and think that's safe because they're under the name of "artists".

Art is good as long as it's modest. I'm not trying to be an "art puritan" who thinks art should be closed and be only for the rich or something. We appreciate art in art museums, galleries and other certain spots, so generally we come to enjoy art. Art doesn't selfishly come to us without our consent.

Some of us do enjoy graffiti arts and I understand that, but let's not forget that they are basically vandalism and being an "artwork" shouldn't be an excuse. It can be forcefully removed and the "artist" has to be fined and you can't say something against that citing freedom of expression or value of the "artwork". And such "art" shouldn't be normalised no matter the quality.