As one who was charged with cleaning walls of this sort of 'art', I say take it down as simple vandalism. No one, even "artists", have a right to scribble on someone else's property - don't promote it to the world in such a great Flickr Group.

Well said, Bob.

Bob Gundersen:
I’m leaning toward avoiding photos where the subject appears to be graffiti, since it’s not architecture.

How about decrepit storefronts—occupied or otherwise—in old European cities? The ruins of old gas stations scattered across the American West? Many of those will have attracted graffiti. I’m inclined to accept photos of dead or run-down buildings, regardless whether they have been vandalized,

That said, we don’t see much of that here. The community appears to be much more interested in living buildings.

IMO, if the point of the group is architecture, shots of graffiti and street art aren't architecture and should be rejected; but if they are on a building which would qualify for the group if the architecture was there AND the graffiti isn't the focus, I would keep it. So I'm in line with the "we should reject pictures where the subject is really the artwork rather than the wall that supports it" sentiment.

Totally agree

Hey Boss, what's the official opinion on photos posted with no title and no indication of location (other than tags? I've approved a couple this morning, pending your ruling.
Cheers from DownUnder.

Robert E C:
No requirement for title or location, in the spirit of “Unlimited”. In case of uncertainty, you can mark them “save for later” and/or post them in this thread for discussion, as [url].

Happy to discuss a list of requirements that might be published for the membership. So far the simple description seems to be working. Also, now that we have global moderation, we might consider lifting the “30/60” limit. Thoughts?

I agree that graffiti, tagging and murals aren’t architecture. There are lots of groups here just for those genres.
Let’s get that firmly stated in our rules.

To me the nuance is whether the picture captures the whole building or just the graffiti. My personal definition of a mural is a large scale covering all of a side of a building adding a characteristic to the building/architecture. While graffiti are non-commission tags on a building and this alone should not qualify for this group particularly if the entirety of the building is not the focus.

To me, it's quite clear. The terms "architecture" and "architect" go together. Architecture is what the architect created.

If someone spray-paints a mess onto the walls, that's not part of the architect's design. It doesn't have a place here. (It doesn't have a place anywhere, but that's just an aside)

If someone lets a house go to ruin through neglect, that's not part of the architect's design and shouldn't have a place here. There are groups specifically for that, I should think.

mkk707:
A neglected building still illustrates architectural design—choice of materials; layout; fitness for purpose; cost v. longevity; a period style; &c. Egyptian and Mayan Pyramids, the Coliseum, Castles on the Rhine, but also abandoned gas stations and convenience stores in the American West, empty storefronts; &c.

For example, “Renovate Me”, the title taken from stenciled graffiti at top center:

WalrusTexas:

You do have a point there.

Seems we visited the same place. :-) I wouldn't say the architecture takes centre-stage here, though.

mkk707:

No, it’s not center stage

I don't like when Listed Buildings get large graffiti murals put on them.
In Liverpool there is a former bank in glorious isolation with a huge 'muriel' on both side walls.
Once a building is mutilated in this way, there's no way back to how it used to be.

mkk707:
Wan’t Bratislava great? Had not been there before, probably could have spent several days.