[Katsu] pioneered the fire extinguisher spray can, which has permitted him to expand the scale of his art by orders of magnitude. He famously demoed it at "Art in the Streets," a 2012 show at the the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art, when, without invitation, he left his multi-story calling card on the side of the museum.
The part of the story that is not mentioned is that this show was very well-attended (it's graffiti! it's art! it's hip!), but very controversial in an LA art world that is quite accepting of out-of-the-box concepts. This show and shows like it precipitated the resignation of all the artists on the MOCA board, and then caused the departure of the museum director, Jeffrey Deitch, who had championed the show.
The reason this is worth mentioning is that the article is playing in to the same rather thoughtlessly "transgressive" narrative about graffiti being, in itself, a serious contribution to the art world. What we actually have here is an interesting tech demo of novel ways to apply spray paint. But, what is the artistic contribution of this work? What is this cultural intervention on the part of Katsu trying to accomplish? (Or put another way, "Why are you calling this art? What cultural effect do you want to achieve?")
All he talks about in the interview is (a) some rather tired reasoning about the paint effects offered by the new method of application, and (b) some uninteresting claims about reclaiming the drone in the name of artistic expression.
This is hip and meme-abundant, but I don't see how it seriously contributes to culture.