Who's Bad?

HRM's graffiti policy is crystal clear. HRM will remove graffiti from HRM-owned assets within 3 days. The theory is that the longer graffiti is displayed, the more likely additional graffiti will occur, or spread to nearby sites. So therefor HRM will remove graffiti aggressively from its public buildings. Like the Public Library. The policy looks good on paper.

HRM also offers this friendly advice to anyone who might think about publicizing graffiti - "Avoid showing graffiti as it only gives more fame to the person who did it. If graffiti must be shown, only use one small unrecognizable area, or ensure the background of graffiti be slightly out-of-focus to distort any tags. It can also be photographed at an angle that makes it illegible." "Do not refer to the graffiti writer as an “artist”."

So, I suppose by the HRM's Graffiti policy point of view - I am bad - I photograph (in focus, in it's entirety), post, publicize graffiti, and used the verboten term "artist". In fact - I must be very bad - avoid me at all costs.

So how does HRM shape up? The left photos were taken 2 weeks ago, the right today (Jan 16, 2007). Two full weeks have elapsed. The top 3 are from the HRM Public Library on Spring Garden Road, the 4th from the Black Market.





So - tell me again - Who's bad?