Graffiti, plastering of walls, is that OK?

Yes, because it’s a protest against the bourgeoisie, for anarchy, which should be allowed in a free country.

No, because costs for cleaning are expenses, which should be recoverable from the perpetrators.

But graffiti may be Art with a capital A. An Example.

The already world-famous Keith Haring had decorated the hoarding around the giant excavation site at the Waterlooplein. Before they would sink the concrete sections of a new metro tube into the historic center of Amsterdam, where Jews first settled after the last expulsion from the Low Countries, a rescue dig was allowed. His distinctive figures went on and on along the long fence (less bourgeois than Nijntje from the late Dick Bruna, I guess). Great protests against the destruction of a whole city quarter proved fruitless. Therefore it struck me that Keith’s red outline figures were happily dancing around. However, later, some Philistine must have thrown out these unique art panels that could have been sold for hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now picture the following (it will be hard, but try). Someone in Amsterdam has a bright idea, to fly in from South America a street artist to paint an anarchistic mural in the Dutch capital. That could be Art, but avant-garde?

I can prove that it wasn’t. The mural has now been dabbed with … locale graffiti. No airfare. You can’t make this up. The revolution turned bourgeois and is now attacked by the next generation.

To complicate things further, the mural was a portray of … Anne Frank. Who in their right mind would deface that?

Exactly: anarchists.

Art experts and connoisseurs call it stupid and sad. They will only understand a revolution that’s already in the museum.

Life can be so complicated. For the establishment, that is.