Graffiti: It’s Not What It Is, It’s Where It’s At

Re “Camera Becomes New Weapon in War on Graffiti,” Dec. 24: I’d like to propose an approach that could reduce tagging in many locations while drawing it to “graffiti-legal walls” where an on-site, time-lapsing digital camera, connected to the Web, would document the constantly evolving wall art. This perpetually “morphing mural” would exist both as a piece of wall art--every day a little different from the day before--and as an “animated” artwork on the Web. Taggers and graffiti artists would create “placas,” figures and aggregations of color and texture that graphically play with and interact with the formations already on the wall, in the process producing an evolving work of collaborative co-creation.

This is a creativity carrot instead of a punitive stick. Considering the cost and indifferent results of the existing graffiti-cams, this “graffiti artcam” is a potential public arts project worth trying. A well-illuminated, large white wall in a public location in a business district would be ideal. The cost could be split between a public arts agency or foundation and moneys from a vandalism surcharge or tax on sales of spray paints, so much of which causes so much costly havoc to so many property owners.

Gregory Wright

Sherman Oaks

*

Cameras may be one method of deterring taggers. However, vines and shrubbery are just as effective, environmentally friendlier, nicer to look at and probably cheaper. Covered with vines, the long, plain wall shown in the photo accompanying the article could be an asset to the street instead of another example of urban sterility.

Paul Bergman

Los Angeles