The art of graffiti

I'm writing in response to the letters in your November 18 issue ["Tagged and bound"]. Sergio Martinez wrote that "graffiti vandals" are members of juvenile gangs, marking their territory and taxing younger students. In fact, people who do graffiti are not members of gangs, at least not in Montreal or any part of Canada. They belong to crews: organized groups of writers who paint together. The only illegal act they indulge in is painting without permission.

Unless Mr. Martinez has been the victim of a mugging and asked his mugger if he was a graffiti writer, then I don't know how he can make this assumption. The majority of Montreal graffiti writers are not even adolescents, they are young adults and taxpayers. If we lived in Los Angeles then he might have been correct, due to the fact that most youth unwillingly belong to gangs for protection.

He also points out that graffiti tends to be in public places and not in "places that are used by the rich." He fails to realize that this is because the majority of people in any urban metropolis will head to the downtown core for work, school and leisure, making it the most heavily trafficked area. He overlooks the fact that the rich tend to pay more attention to their property because they can afford to and because their property reflects them and thus gives them status.

He states that the meaning of art would have to be stretched to include taggers. Graffiti (tags included) is and has been well-documented as a form of artistic expression by many sociologists and art historians, and hangs on the walls of many galleries. Are these experts on art and social behaviour wrong to have these beliefs? He claims graffiti artists are much more likely to be the next rapists and drug dealers of our society, rather than artists of the future. Then how does he account for the value and success of Keith Haring and his work?

Perhaps graffiti cannot be appreciated for what it is now. Like Monet and the Impressionists, whose work was looked down upon when it was first created and gained respect only three generations later, perhaps graffiti "art" will find a permanent place in and respect from future generations. "Visual pollution" today, valued art tomorrow. Perhaps your tagged back-alley door will one day be worth thousands of dollars.

As an authority on graffiti--who once was condemned for my actions as a tagger, but am now a respected artist and an established graffiti-related business owner in Montreal (need I note taxpayer)--my partners and I have been praised for beautifying areas of the city using graffiti while still indulging in the occasional act of tagging. In defence of taggers, I'd like to explain that tagging is an introductory practice, an important and necessary part in the evolution of becoming a graffiti writer/"artist." It is a way of establishing another identity, just as an author will use a pseudonym to work under, which allows the artist to freely express themselves with impunity. I do not judge those individuals who either like or dislike graffiti as they judge me, I only hope to help them understand its presence.

--Seaz, Urban Expressions

Earth to Gravenor

"PQ embraces both nationalism and socialism." This line from Kristian Gravenor's article ["Kill the libel chill," Nov. 11] proves that he must have been living on another planet for the last couple of years. He must have missed the PQ's "virage a droite," which is the only way he could dream of using the words socialism and PQ in the same sentence.

If Gravenor had been living on this planet, he would have noticed that the PQ quit being socialist a very long time ago. About the time they undertook massive cuts to health care and education, over $3 billion worth. How could anybody in their right mind call a party that hands over a whopping $365 million to GM, just so they might stick around and play for a couple more years, a socialist party? That's why I would like to be the first one to say: Gravenor is a Martian, beware! Libel that!

--Ben Kuhn

X for Ex-Centris

My first impression of Ex-Centris was that the architect must have had an unhappy childhood ["Deconstructing Ex-Centris," Nov. 4].

If change is always for the better, that certainly isn't proven by this building. Consider the plain new Parallele screening room: there isn't even enough in there to call it ugly, nor is it a good place to see a movie. The seats aren't as comfortable as those in the old Parallele and the very slight incline of the floor and low placement of the screen guarantee that the film is always partially obstructed by someone's head. The other two cinemas aren't much better.

As to whether or not this Ministry of Enlightenment is any good, I would answer that with another question: Where did all the money go?

--John Oliveros