[lmm]

If people enjoy seeing it it seems decidedly churlish not to preserve it for future generations. As does someone who can only enjoy it because other people won't be able to.

As for missing the point, I'll raise you death of the author. A piece of art must stand on its own merits, not the intentions of its creator.

[icebraining]

But you can't preserve it for future generations, because the location and inevitable impermanence is part of the work. By covering it, you'd be defacing the work to protect it.

[lmm]

The defence of the value of his work was that "people enjoy looking at" it. Is that compromised by covering it? No.

(Any measure of art preservation is an inconvenience to viewing it, but we generally consider this a worthwhile tradeoff)

[icebraining]

we generally consider this a worthwhile tradeoff

Yes, generally we do, and I'd agree for graffiti done in canvas or similar mediums, but I think street art is an obvious exception, since the canvas is the whole street. You could only preserve the artwork by preserving at least the whole building, and possibly more than that.

[lmm]

Are people going to enjoy looking at it less if the building changes (assuming the painted part doesn't)? My guess is that the overwhelming majority of the enjoyment will be preserved.