[mcpackieh]

> they bring social commentary

In other words, they're propaganda. At least in the case of graffiti with social commentary, anybody can go out there and put their message up. Murals with social messages are propaganda sanctioned by the property owner, or even commissioned by the government, making it establishmentarian propaganda that pretends to be transgressive by adopting the superficial form of unsanctioned graffiti. Such murals are tacky and inauthentic; scrawled gang signs have more soul.

[pixl97]

Right, art can only be anti-establishment...

Might as well cancel the law and put up Wal-mart signs.

[mcpackieh]

I assert that establishmentarian propaganda is soulless trash, and you conclude that I want more corporate propaganda? You seem very confused.

[pixl97]

So you've established yourself as the arbiter of what is both establishment and propaganda... Did you become the thing you hate?

This may be a case where you spend so much time trying to be contrarian and not asking "Would getting what I want actually improve anything in the world".

[camgunz]

This really stretches the meaning of propaganda almost to the point where it's synonymous with individual speech. Propaganda is systematic opinion making where some group does things like call tons of people or distribute tons of leaflets, or astroturf internet forums. It's not the same thing as putting up a mural on a building you own, or a sign in your yard.

I think a mural could be part of a propaganda campaign, but I don't think by themselves they merit the categorization.

[mcpackieh]

> it's synonymous with individual speech.

Graffiti is individual speech, murals commissioned by the local government to glorify itself are not.

[camgunz]

Are these the majority of the murals and are they clearly Pro-government? I can't even find one example of what you might be talking about. This seems like a total non-issue.