is it vandalism or art or bad advertising? depends on how you feel about graffiti to begin with. this is still graffiti, but it’s an innovative method to graffiti. there are other new methods out there, too –

some graffiti artists are using acid etching tools to permanently mark the subway windows in nyc — is this closer to vandalism than soap graffiti?

what about agit-prop graffiti? there’s still a marketing message behind that.

other artists are using SMS and a projector — not permanent, are we close to art now?

but what about when Jack Liberties beamed the batsignal onto a building to promote the batman movie? — is that art? is that some schmuck spoiling spaces for a buck?

i prefer to judge the artwork based on it’s own merit - not on how the artist was paid for it. remember, most public art (aside from graffiti) is still paid for one way or another. whether it’s a trust or a corporation or an individual or even a city council, the artwork is still paid for; and, in those situations, there is usually an application process — and, even, a little “design by committee”. look at the debacle with the world trade center to see how that stuff goes. at the end, for me, it’s how well the artwork is executed that determines the value — not how the artist received their money. after all, even the sistine chapel was a corporate sponsored promotional package