src="http://www.woostercollective.com/images/billboard_phatFood2.jpg">

/>In today’s Los Angeles Times (where I happen to be this week) there’s an
interesting commentary by Crispin Sartwell on the relationship between graffiti
and advertising:

Graffiti Gets Philosophical

/>Defacing ads should be allowed. The medium is the billboard and the message is
freedom.
By Crispin Sartwell

“Graffiti and advertising have many
things in common. Both convey messages by occupying public space; indeed, both
are omnipresent and unavoidable. At the upper reaches of excellence both are
arts, though they are more often merely puerile and annoying noise. But there
are some key differences.

Advertising is designed to manipulate
people, whereas graffiti is essentially a pure mode of self-expression.
Advertising is encouraged or courted by the authorities. Graffiti is illegal.
And here is the difference that makes sense of all the others: money. All the
legitimacy of advertising derives from the money that is paid to post it and the
revenue it generates.

On the other hand graffiti is, in every sense,
free and hence criminal. In fact, law enforcement is often called on to defend
advertisements from graffiti.

Advertising is the public expression of
wealthy people and organizations. Graffiti is the public expression of people
who are more or less broke. And that is exactly why advertising is authorized
and graffiti is eradicated.  ( href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-
sartwell25aug25,1,1873269.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions">more)
/>