I wouldn't want to be remembered as the guy who contaminated a perfectly legitimate form of protest art with money and celebrities.
Should graffiti be judged on the same level as modern art? Of course not: It's way more important than that.
You live in the city and all the time there are signs telling you what to do and billboards trying to sell you something.
I give away thousands of paintings for free.
I don't know why people are so keen to put the details of their private life in public; they forget that invisibility is a superpower.
Graffiti's always been a temporary art form. You make your mark and then they scrub it off.
I started painting graffiti in the classic New York style of big letters and characters but I was never very good at it.
All graffiti is low-level dissent, but stencils have an extra history. They've been used to start revolutions and to stop wars.
There's obviously nothing wrong with selling your art - only an idiot with a trust fund would tell you otherwise. But it's confusing to know how far you should take it.
It's great, I guess, when your paintings are hanging up in a museum.
I love the way capitalism finds a place - even for its enemies.