In the late to mid 60s there were great changes in infrastructure and economics. Artists like Vito Acconci in the 70s were dealing with a relatively new world. What Acconci and say graffiti have in common is subversion. Graffiti subverts space and so too did Acconci in some of his key works. These, at the time new ways of using space are easily criticised for varying reasons. They seem like a break in traditions of art yet they still sit well with art history as say Acconci deals with perversions that have always lived in the Western tradition of Greek Mythology for example. Graffiti on the other hand is simply the harder of the two to justify. It becomes more a highlight of a tradition that was always there though never able to grow the way it did with new infrastructure of the time. Railway corridors and freeways became places graffiti could grow in and become a larger player in what was a different world. What both Acconci and graffiti highlight is that the audience is challenged to possibly change their own views of what art can be in a world that has changed forever. Boundaries and fashions change all of the time so art can and will change course. In the current economically driven Neo-liberal world these subversions are hard to market or justify as even being art. Why I mention these traditions is to underline my own core artistic positions. For one I don’t want my audience to feel too comfortable so I will change my approaches and media quite radically. That in itself isn’t particularly challenging yet graffiti itself in many forms is still difficult for people to accept as art. The audience can be easily confused yet what stays the same is the idea that art can change at any time in any way.