George,

Al Weed believes that graffiti leads to urban decay and decline. First the Bronx, next Charlottesville.

I think this might be an example of confusing a correlation with a cause. Graffiti in the inner city has traditionally been the outlet for the voiceless to not only express their voices -- but also their anger. Whether the message is legible not, the hostile act of defacing someone's property can be clearly understood.

Until we know whether we have a group of disenfranchised young folk who don't feel they have access to the public ear, or whether it's the cultural cascade factor -- what was cool in New York 15 years ago finally gets to small-town Virginia -- we won't know what to do about the urban blighting of Charlottesville.

"Sanctioned" graffiti such as that of Beta Bridge or CHS is not the same, of course. I do like the parallel he draws between horrible commercial signage and graffiti -- they're both an attempt to mark territory, as well as communicate. Maybe if some people in our community are feeling a need to deface buildings we should be asking why, and what we can do about it, instead of paying someone for the Sisyphean task of washing it off.

Valerie L'Herrou (electronic mail, May 14, 2002)