GRAFFITI 4 GOOD

<- Some 2002 STL graffiti
Every time I ride the metro I stare out the windows at the concrete walls whizzing past and look for new pieces of graffiti that have cropped up since the last time I rode that way. I love graffiti a lot. Wait, I should qualify that: I love good graffiti a lot. Let me now define "good": good graffiti is not done on buildings/structures/places which would otherwise be beautiful without the graffiti (I know everyone has opinions about what is beautiful, but some are easier to pinpoint than others). For example, I don't like it when there is graffiti on brick buildings or old buildings. Actually, it's pretty hard for me to think of a building on which I approve doing graffiti. So where should graffiti be done? I think that all underpasses, all concrete walls that run next to train tracks, and train/metro cars should be viable grounds for graffiti art. They are pretty ugly as is, so adding color can never hurt, and has the potential to be beautiful. I'm not saying I think graffiti should be made legal. The illegality of graffiti is what makes it appealing: it's risky and exhilarating. The point of most graffiti is to leave your mark on a place, artists merely write their names in ever more complex and interesting ways. The status of a piece is elevated by its complexity and difficulty of location (like if it's on the side of Eads bridge or something). I think that graffiti needs to evolve. Artists have the potential to reach a vast audience (young and old alike) with their work, and they should take advantage of it. Graffiti should be a means for The People to voice their opinions in a very public way. Doing graffiti that has some sort of message (a good message of course) can affect a ton of people. I think it would make a lot of people's day if a big fill-in of "SAVE THE METRO" showed up on the side of some underpass on the way to downtown.

-DJ