They didn’t have pens, paper, ink, printing press. They had a camp and a rock surface and they chose to use it. And this makes it less important because you choose to call it graffiti? Why? Is cave art graffiti? How about Egyptian hieroglyphs? Or Viking runes? Or tombstones? Or engravings on plaques? Doesn’t matter what you call it, man. It’s shouldn’t be destroyed. And that’s my point. You don’t know it’s context, so who are you to say it doesn’t matter? Let it be and don’t destroy it.
I’ll be more clear. That rock art— or graffiti as you call it— might have meant a great deal to them, like our constitution means a lot to us. Belittling it because you think it’s silly isn’t right just as belittling the constitution to usher in Marxist dogma isn’t right. That document matters a great deal. It’s history as is the rock art. They put their ideas on rocks. We put ours on paper. There may be a point in the future when people say “it’s just words scribbled on paper” about our constitution. Similar to how you’re saying it’s graffiti on a rock so why should anyone care? Comparing it to the constitution, you’re right, the constitution is more important in my opinion. But that doesn’t give anyone the right to destroy the rock art which is why I care about the bolts on the first place.
The person who drew the picture on the rock had the right to do so, and the person who put a bolt in the rock to climb it also had a right to do so. Both were individual humans manipulating natural material to pursue their own desires. One to climb, one to create art. The difference in time does not make one human's desire to use that natural space more important than the other's.
They didn’t have pens, paper, ink, printing press. They had a camp and a rock surface and they chose to use it. And this makes it less important because you choose to call it graffiti? Why? Is cave art graffiti? How about Egyptian hieroglyphs? Or Viking runes? Or tombstones? Or engravings on plaques? Doesn’t matter what you call it, man. It’s shouldn’t be destroyed. And that’s my point. You don’t know it’s context, so who are you to say it doesn’t matter? Let it be and don’t destroy it.
Yes, cave art is graffiti too. I explained why. Your incredulous disbelief isn't a substitute for an argument otherwise.
I’ll be more clear. That rock art— or graffiti as you call it— might have meant a great deal to them, like our constitution means a lot to us. Belittling it because you think it’s silly isn’t right just as belittling the constitution to usher in Marxist dogma isn’t right. That document matters a great deal. It’s history as is the rock art. They put their ideas on rocks. We put ours on paper. There may be a point in the future when people say “it’s just words scribbled on paper” about our constitution. Similar to how you’re saying it’s graffiti on a rock so why should anyone care? Comparing it to the constitution, you’re right, the constitution is more important in my opinion. But that doesn’t give anyone the right to destroy the rock art which is why I care about the bolts on the first place.
Here's my point, and I bet you can't refute it:
The person who drew the picture on the rock had the right to do so, and the person who put a bolt in the rock to climb it also had a right to do so. Both were individual humans manipulating natural material to pursue their own desires. One to climb, one to create art. The difference in time does not make one human's desire to use that natural space more important than the other's.