Where do you draw the line when it comes down to graffiti & art?

I did a lot of graffiti when I was younger. Still do, but not as active as I used to be. I've had my run ins with the law and have had to pay m fines on graffiti clean up. So about 2 court appearances and $700+ dollars later, I just couldn't do it anymore. It is destructive, it does cause an eye-sore to well built communities and just instigates more & more onto the filth of certain cities. I can't imagine what city transit and local businesses have to deal with when coming down to keeping their blocks clean and attracting the right attention. On the other hand, I also see the unique artistic value in it. There are a lot of talent in what these people do yet, there are a bunch of rouges out there who are out of control and become destructive in public property. Yet, graffiti is graffiti, to the untrained eye of a person who wouldn't careless of what the difference is. It's been around since the 80's and still is around today. My question is; Where do you draw the line when it comes down to graffiti & art? Is there such waiver that excludes people who are outstanding at graffiti (i.e. Murals, Burners, etc.) from being considered vandals OR are we all the same in every aspect? What are your thoughts?