I can convince myself that he’s simply illegally defaced the building. Just some expensive graffiti.
If he had used the traditional graffiti of spray paint to add his name to the building, then his name would also have literally been on the building, too, but I think it would be difficult to argue that such a thing should condemn the entire building.
His name is literally on the building now. It doesn’t matter what the law says anymore
I can convince myself that he’s simply illegally defaced the building. Just some expensive graffiti.
If he had used the traditional graffiti of spray paint to add his name to the building, then his name would also have literally been on the building, too, but I think it would be difficult to argue that such a thing should condemn the entire building.
This is my spin that could save the building.