Hey George,

As a sometimes grafitti "vandal" myself I wanted to add something to the debate about the purpose and effect of the art form.

Blake Caravati writes about the need for people to express themselves in a "manner respectful of others and the enviroment we live in" (email August 6)

Wait a second. Why is it then that corporations are allowed to run all over defacing the landscape with monolithic structures built to pay homage to structural imagery best associated with fascism? - ie tall, blocky, structures only describing weight and power - think parking garages and giant metal balls here.

This is a double-standard. After all; few people would argue that the houses torn down to make room for our deluxe hotels on Main St, or the proposed garage on Emmet is in any respectful of "others or the environment we live in."

What they are, are big blocks of concrete and steel - and the sort of life they promote has it's best analogy in prison design - which corporate architecture usually resembles, from the cubicles on up.

So why the difference? I think it comes down to power. 14 feet of art on a blank wall by an individual is a "problem" - but a thousand feet of staid life-draining architecture created by a corporation is recognized as "normal."

If "life is but a play", corporate architecture creates the scenery of nothingness, isolation, and despair. It is a "house of no surprises".

And I think that's why you'll find that people who really give a damn about living their lives in a passionate and liberated way - young revolutionaries, hip-hop artists, and such - hate the stuff sooooo much.

When we create a new use for the physical material that has been presented to us we re-create our environment as an interesting place and that's a good thing.

This is the sort of thing you may see when a skateboarder uses a handrail as a slide, an artist tags a wall, or a person takes a box, sets it on the ground, climbs atop, and begins to speak.

This is the sort of thing you may see when an engineer makes a coat out of carpet and calls it "fleece", or a city takes a transit road and rebuilds it as "the downtown mall."

It's pretty rare to see graffitti painted over another persons artwork, or a unique or interesting building. It almost never happens, which suggests that the artists are using some discrimination.

It is not rare to see those in power destroy the natural, historical, or imaginative enivironment for their own convenience. As you can see in places like Singapore, 1940's Germany, 12th Century Italy, or modern-day China - that convenience is often political.

These ordinances have little to do with "respect for the environment" and a lot to do with control. Muncipalities that seek to control art should know the company they keep.

But those interested in prosecution anyway should know some of the prime offenders: VDOT, the Red Roof Inn, Wal-Mart, et al.

Businesses that create these "organized blights" on the landscape tend to be the same ones that will let their employees go hungry to boost stock profits, and the same ones that work against the living wage campaign.

Perhaps there is a connection?

Andrew Holden (electronic mail, August 6, 2002)