Graffiti: Malicious or not?
February 15th, 2009 | 
Author: North Carolina State University Professor Deborah Lamm Weisel at the Center for Problem Oriented Policing writes, “Historically, much conventional graffiti has represented a youthful “rite of passage” — part of a phase of experimental behavior. Such graffiti is usually spontaneous and not malicious in nature; indeed, spontaneous graffiti has often been characterized as play, adventure or exuberance. Spontaneous graffiti may reflect local traditions and appear on “fair targets” such as abandoned buildings or schools. Communities have often tolerated such graffiti.”
This is nonsense. When a person is old enough to understand that damaging the property of another is wrong the motive is malicious. The behavior is therefore malicious. Every community I have lived in has reviled graffiti. It has never been tolerated as play or a right of passage.
While I applaud the fact that a university actually has a professor speaking out against graffiti as a crime I still have to challenge a point of view that simply does not make sense. There is nothing playful about a kid that vandalizes the property of another. There is nothing exuberant about the behavior that diminishes the effect of the vandalism on the victim. One cannot assume after everything that has been learned about this crime that a perpetrator can be explained away in this fashion. It is just nuts!
When someone purchases or steals a can of spray paint to damage the property of another it is not a spontaneous crime. What is the likelihood of a graffiti vandal spontaneously finding a can of spray paint to damage someone esle’s property? I think it an unlikely event.
While I enjoyed reading the professor’s web page I had to disagree wither assumption in this respect. I have NEVER heard of graffiti characterized as spontaneous. When she says, “often been characterized as play, adventure or exuberance,” I say prove it. Show me. No way you can say this and support the claim.
And what in the name of all we hold dear is a fair target for a graffiti vandal?
Enjoy the read? Support DougWeb with coffee money ;) Sphere: Related ContentRelated DougWeb posts:
- Graffiti can be a Cowardly Hate Crime The recently reported vandalism in Prince George’s County remind us...
- Does Southern Maryland have a Graffiti Problem? Calvert County has experienced graffiti vandalism this year. How about...
- Are YOU a Graffiti Victim? What has changed in the thirteen years since DougWeb got...
- Salisbury, MD Mayor: Malicious Blogs Endangering City SALISBURY — In her final State of the City address,...
- The New York Times is a Graffiti Advocate Wow! One more reason to cancel your New York Times...
- Gray Ghost of New Orleans Busted! Gray Ghost of New Orleans (anti-graffiti artist responsible for ruining...
- Photographs of Graffiti in Newspapers or Graffiti Video on TV News The graffiti subculture derives great satisfaction having attention paid to...
- Graffiti: The News Is Not Good Is anyone reading the latest news about graffiti vandalism? The...
- Graffiti Art Takes Wrong Turn When graffiti got to be a problem for Mark Schachner....
- ACP Blog: Graffiti — Often More Than Meets the Eye The Annapolis Capital Punishment blog has an excellent article on...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Posted in Anti-Graffiti
The more I thought about this statement the more troubled I was about its assumptions.
“Historically, much conventional graffiti has represented a youthful “rite of passage” — part of a phase of experimental behavior."
I have been involved for some years as an advocate for the graffiti victim. In that time people have tried to define graffiti vandalism down as a rite of passage but I have never seen academic proof of the claim. To me this has always been a mantra of the political left who have always sought to defend vandals as disenfranchised and therefore somehow privileged to commit their crimes. Just exactly what is experimental behavior? Since when do we permit experimental behaviors that trample on the rights of others? What are other "experimental behaviors?"
"Such graffiti is usually spontaneous and not malicious in nature; indeed, spontaneous graffiti has often been characterized as play, adventure or exuberance."
This is a fallacious personal opinion. The act of damaging the property of another is a crime and therefore malicious. The difference between graffiti and art is permission. The is nothing spontaneous about repeatedly damaging the property of another with spray paint, acid, scratching tools etc., especially over a long period of time. Play? Adventure? I'll give you that committing the crime is part of the thrill but is crime an adventure or play? No the point of view is sophistic at best.
"Spontaneous graffiti may reflect local traditions and appear on “fair targets” such as abandoned buildings or schools. Communities have often tolerated such graffiti.”
I think there is a tendency for local government to over look graffiti because it is so expensive to abate. Since 1995 some police agencies have even defined graffiti vandalism down by calling it a "quality of life" crime; but to say that communities have tolerated the graffiti is incorrect. In my experience when a community fist begins to see graffiti they ignore it because they are in denial that they have a graffiti problem. They hope it is going to go away. In virtually every case I have seen this denial turns to anger and not tolerance.
What are fair targets exactly. How is one target fair and another not fair? This argument I miss completely. The fair target concept makes no sense to me and leads me to absolutely no new understanding of graffiti crime.
"But graffiti has become a major concern, and the mass media, including movies and websites glamorizing or promoting graffiti as an acceptable form of urban street art, have contributed to its spread."
I can agree with this statement also in the Center for Problem Oriented Policing's statement on graffiti. Graffiti fighters have been saying this for over a decade and organizations like the NoGraf Network have worked tirelessly to make the business community aware of campaigns that glorify graffiti vandalism.