Dear WDEF12,

With the utmost respect intended, this headline is irresponsible:

"Cleveland Goes After Graffiti Artists"

In regards to its story, it's a fine report about some racist graffiti. But, anyone who picks up a marker (or some paint) and makes a mark is not an artist, unless you're using a tricky, cyclical logic kind of definition.

And graffiti, despite certain negative generational connotations, is not synonymous with blight. Some graffiti (read: marking on walls in public) can be beautiful and some can be as stupid as a dog relieving his nature on the hydrant. Within graffiti art is some of the finest illustration this planet has ever seen, but because of many circumstances it is often misunderstood or misrepresented.

It is as inaccurate to refer to all graffiti as art as it is to refer to all art as painting. As analogy: one doesn't consider all crimes to be the same transgression. Just because artful graffiti has made a rise in pop culture — as it signifies a vibrant, creative urban community — that does not mean anyone who commits an act of graffiti deserves the kind of deeper resonance assoicated with the evocation of terms like "art" or "artist". A valet is a professional driver only with your tongue planted deeply in cheek.

Producing stories like this is excellent community journalism, this is deserving news. And I understand the difference between irresponsible acts of vandalism and unrequested public art is sometimes a difficult line to see. And often, even talented artists would be better suited pursuing proper channels to display their talents. But this is obvious. And claiming that the whole city is somehow targeting graffiti artists, when in fact it may only be looking for one or two dense individuals whose only chutzpah is the buying of spray cans, is actually doing a disservice to everyone involved.

It's off-message. It misdirects. It misinforms. Thankfully, it was only on the web for the whole world to see. Yixe.

I expect a retraction.

Sincerely,
Phillip L. Kaplan