Are Makers of Graffiti Artists or Vandals?

Re “It’s Vandalism, Not Art,” editorial, April 4: Oh, they’re just baiting us; but, sure, I have an art degree, and I don’t see anything wrong with calling graffiti art. I’ve long held that everything can be viewed in aesthetic terms, and probably should. My niece collects Thomas Kinkade paintings to some end. They scare me, but the fact that they do elicit an emotional response would suggest that they’re communicating something.

What gets me, more than even graffiti itself, is the way we try to get rid of it. Although I welcome some techniques, like covering walls with ivy, I absolutely cannot figure how it’s so very difficult to match the color of the paint used to cover it with the color of the original surface.

Ronald Webster

Long Beach

*

I can only guess that your bitter attitude toward graffiti is due to misplaced anger over vandalism problems and a lack of artistic talent in the discussed exhibition. In New York City, graffiti artists like Antonio “Chico” Garcia and the members of the Tats Crew have used their graffiti methods and styles to create visually powerful memorials and tribute murals that are considered works of art and beautifying elements of our cityscape.

With recent violations of the ethics of photojournalism, namely the manipulation of images, it is ironic that you would question the merit of graffiti as an art form and criticize artists who are trying to establish a legitimate and lawful career.

Mickey Pentecost

New York City

*

I totally agree with your assessment of graffiti: it is vandalism. As a founding member of the Harbor Gang Alternative Program, our board has fought this blight on our community for the last 15 years and still it exists because we still have people who think it is “freedom of expression for the underprivileged artist.” There is a history of penniless artists who still bought their own canvases.

Angie Papadakis

Rancho Palos Verdes