What is graffiti’s true offense against society? What kind of social order does graffiti disrupt in the first place? And does the act of buffi actually and effectively restore this kind of social order? While there is yet to be a national law against “vandalism,” the existence of ordinances such as Marikina City’s Ordinance No. 017 prohibiting graffiti as a type of defacement of property signifies its status as an act of deviance that disrupts social order. As such, graffiti is also considered a public issue that requires corrective action, one example of which is the city’s consistent effort in buff, or the painting over of graffiti so as to erase it. Using Deborah Landry’s aesthetics of security, Emma Arnold’s neoliberal aesthetics, and Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence, I discursively analyze visual data gathered through walking ethnography. I argue that, apart from merely recognizing them as an effort in maintaining the “cleanliness” of both public and private property, the Marikina City buff is ultimately a crude enforcement of neoliberal aesthetics that lacks visual and methodical sophistication in the pursuit of its ideals. State-sponsored buff is also an expression of different political philosophies and government approaches across the years, as well as an attempt to emulate a sense of aesthetic sense and thus position itself as art, rendering all it covers up as not-art.