[QUOTE=kambuckta]
I find the proliferation of graffiti in urban areas an interesting sociological phenomenon actually.
My personal hypothesis (not yet tested, but I WILL do a research study one day 
) is that as individuals, particularly youths, have become more and more disenfranchised from the community at large, they have an increasing desire to leave their mark literally on the landscape.
Back in the good ol’ days, young men had their roles in the family and society very much cut out for them. In their work, they could see the fruits of their labour transform the environment: from the hunter-gatherers, to more modern rural settings (tending animals and growing crops etc). Most young blokes throughout history have ‘made’ things that have endured…houses for the family to live in, bridges for the horse and cart to cross the river, and even the cart and saddle for the horses themselves. You can add to the list as you see fit.
Nowadays though, the social story is very different. Young urban men in particular often do not have adequate modelling to manifest their ‘manhood’. Their roles in the family (often single-parented, minus dad) are confused and ill-defined. Poor educational outcomes and poverty often mean their later employment options are equally poor . So you have a generation of kids, on the street, trying to carve a niche out for themselves where they have an identity and the community can ‘recognise’ their value.
Graffiti is one way of doing that, and amongst the subculture of taggers great kudos and ‘social capital’ can be gained.
Your hypothesis might be different of course. 
[/QUOTE]
I think this is great. There really is a lot to be said for the need for people (maybe especially young people) to make things. Very interesting hypothesis.
[QUOTE=TheLoadedDog]
I’m a railfan. I think trains are beautiful. I further think graffiti is ugly and the “artists” involved should have their balls cut off.
You, gentle reader, might not be a rail enthusiast. Statistically, you probably aren’t. So let’s use a different example. Would it be okay for some punk little shit to tag your car? After all, it doesn’t make it any less useful!
You own the car, so you might be unimpressed. I am a taxpayer, and I own the train. I am similarly unimpressed.
[/QUOTE]
Hu. I never thought of myself as owning the rail cars before. They are, to me, bland objects that get in my way sometimes then pass into the distance, never to be seen again. Do Americans “own” the rail cars? I was under the impression (perhaps from Monopoly) that the rail-ways were independently owned, but I never really looked into it. I would be offended by graffiti on passenger rail cars, but freight ones? Not really.
As for everyone jumping all over Contrapuntal for suggesting that people wishing to express themselves artistically use refuse instead of the sides of personal property: Construction sites have big piles of what is obviously garbage next to them. Sometimes these piles are actually in big, open dumpsters. We aren’t talking about wondering through high-rises getting in the way and looking for potential junk. All anyone would need to do to get some scrap plywood or drywall or whatever would be to go to a construction site, ask anyone working there if it was okay to take something from the trash pile, and, having secured permission, take it.
Baring this, surely some sort of cardboard or waste paper is available somewhere to paint on if one is so inclined.