ExEMDLOCOTester quipped...
"'maybe I can scratch my initials into your car's hood' Good name for a country tune. 
"
Well, Carrie Underwood has a hit out on the country charts right now called, "Before He Cheats" in which she describes venting her anger upon her significant other's "pretty, little, souped-up four-wheel-drive" by keying the paint, carving her name in the leather seats, taking a Louisville Slugger to the headlights and slashing all four tires. So, you might be onto something with that.
(**Notices disapproving glower from Otto**)
But getting back to the topic at hand...
I'll echo some of the above comments about how grafiti artists could really make some serious cash if they did "legit" work. And all moral and societal implications aside, you have to agree that some of those "works" are quite impressive and do, indeed, qualify as art.
Otto snubbed...
"Yeah, this stuff is great... too bad these people can't put their art onto canvases. Instead, they have to destroy and vandalize other people's property. How do you feel about that, James? Would you like this "art" on the side of your house? or maybe I can scratch my initials into your car's hood? I mean, it's ART. "
What is art? Seriously, Otto, define the term "art."
You
can't.
Art, like many things in life, is
subjective. What one person considers a work of art, others... would rather use unsavory language to describe said "piece." Yes, most grafiti (railroad grafiti included) is illegal - although, there are some grafiti artists who have been commissioned to paint murals on buildings and whatnot - and the above examples are very much an act of vandalism (which, actually is defined in the various civil codes accross the United States and around the world), but it's still art. Abandoned buildings, highway overpasses, junked cars, railroad equipment... that
IS the "canvas" of the grafiti artist and cans of Krylon (or whatever brand they happen to prefer) happens to be their medium of choice. (I could go into the psychology of a tagger/grafiti artist, their motives for producing said "artwork," etc., but they're not totally germane to the topic at hand, nor are discussions of the "broken windows" or "labeling" theories, or other mumbo-jumbo I learned as a Criminal Justice major.)
Believe me, I've seen some stuff that passes for "art" these days (the joys of taking Art classes in college to fill elective credits), and I would be more quick to consider something like the Ghostbusters hopper "art" than that. (But that's my
subjective oppinon.
)
