Norman Mailer argued that graffiti art was more valid as an art piece than Robert Rauschenberg's Erased de Kooning. He took problem with the art piece saying it was more of a societal artifact than an aesthetic artifact. Mailer stated, “It is not the painting that intrigues us now but the lividities of art fashion which made the transaction possible in the first place,” (Mailer, Norman). He was upset with Rauschenberg's Erased de Kooning because he believed that the erased Kooning, although the public never got to see it, was wrongful in that it was taking away something potentially exquisite from society.
Graffiti art on the other hand, Mailer was fascinated by. He showed a lot of respect for graffiti artists calling their art a form of
Graffiti art on the other hand, Mailer was fascinated by. He showed a lot of respect for graffiti artists calling their art a form of