George,

I've been halfheartedly following the debate about graffiti, and had a couple thoughts.

First of all, Mr. Sewell was awfully hard on Alex Davis for questioning the concept of private property. To many people, the idea that one person can "own" any portion of the Earth is laughable. Although it seems heretical in America, it's easy to see the ridiculousness of private property --- it's possible to exchange green slips of paper for the right to call a few acres of billion-year old rock "yours." It speaks to human arrogance. When I was Davis' age, I certainly wasn't heady enough to question things like private property, so good for him.

Also, it's funny how wealth and power dictate the language that we use. When a billboard spoils a Blue Ridge mountainscape that should belong to everyone, it's called "advertising." When someone spray-paints that billboard, it's called "graffiti." Pharmaceutical companies sell psychoactive pills to children, and it's called "behavior modification." But if someone on the street sells a kid pot, he's a "drug pusher." Why don't we call pharmaceutical companies "drug pushers?" That's what they are.

Of course, when the rich and powerful kill innocent people, it's called "collateral damage" in a "just war." When poor people from small, disorganized countries kill innocents, it's called "terrorism."

Some grafitti artists, I think, really want to create something beautiful and interesting. Others are just thoughtless thugs who care about nothing but themselves. Of course, the same two things can be said about the business people whose property is being defaced. Or "enhanced," depending on how you're looking at it.

John Borgmeyer (electronic mail, April 11, 2002)