People who promote the arts are also the folks who feel like ANY criticism of any art form is a form of oppression, hence the response by Ms. Lyford. And what an over the top kneejerk reaction it was even after the blog author put in a disclaimer that nobody connected the two events.

Tagging and graffiti is not an art, they are acts of vandalism to public or private property. Surely, tagging isn’t new to Eaton Canyon, but it probably doesn’t happen there very often.

Taggers are not content to paint their own homes, stretched canvas or their own cars. To the contrary, taggers are looking for the thrill of getting away with a crime and recognition among their peers. That’s why taggers have their own monikers. They’ll tag their monikers, but not their real names. Vincent Van Gogh didn’t sign his paintings “Shifty”. And painting with spray paint isn’t peculiar to taggers, other artists use that medium, but they don’t commit crimes to create and display their art.

I work in law enforcement in a city with a couple of concert halls where several types of musicians play. When the hip hop and gangster rap musicians show up, the fans devoted to them show up as well.

Unfortunately, some of those fans (not all) engage in illegal behavior, like; underage drinking, illegal drug use, fighting, and vandalism. I have spoken with several business owners frustrated over the cost of repairs from the graffiti damage.

Those business owners aren’t afraid to say there’s a connection, mostly because they are victims of crime. They can cite events with different types of performers who DON’T attract taggers and no damage occurs all weekend, but they know that when certain musical groups come to town there is going to be some type of vandalism right around the concert venue.

By the way, it’s usually the next day when people notice the vandalism, so no, it’s not too far of a reach for me to believe the events are connected, so get over yourself.

The post doesn’t say there is a direct link between the graffiti and the Aveson event, but the structure of the post, and the implication of the linkage IS there, and that’s what I was pointing out. I don’t think this reading of the post is “kneejerk”. Rather, it is simply pointing out the implication of the email’s rhetoric, and suggesting that this IMPLICIT link was, in effect, an argument about the cause of the graffiti being promoted by the author.

Re: The comment above about “people who promote that arts” feeling like “any criticism” is “oppression” is a bit disappointing. I just felt it important to point out that there may be different ideas in this community about what constitutes art, and that there is actually a history to the role that graffiti art plays in our culture, and that in some quarters it IS considered art, even if not by all.

I’m disappointed, too, at how my own emails and posts have been responded to with negative language. I will refrain from further posts, as it doesn’t seem a worthwhile endeavor if my ideas are to become pure caricature : be it “people who promote the arts”, “kneejerk” reactionary, or whatever it is people imagine me to be.

Good-bye.

Funny… My family was at the June Jubilee for about two and a half hours. I left the event feeling good about my community. It was great to see so many families enjoying themselves. I did not leave the event thinking about how inappropriate the acts were.

I’m also an avid hiker and have been going to Eaton Canyon almost daily for the last 15+ years. There is nothing that disturbs me more than seeing graffiti and trash in our local mountains. While I’m not going to make a link between the tagging in the canyon and the act at the Jubilee, I will make a link between the school and Eaton Canyon. The school has regular outdoor classroom/field trips at the canyon. My daughter is always very excited when these trips occur. Aveson promotes a philosophy of respect and being responsible and this philosophy certainly extends to nature. My daughter has even attended classes at the Nature Center with other Aveson students. The school has asked each student and family to choose a way of volunteering within the community. My daughter chose to help clean the canyon.

Unfortunately, it seems that there are those in the neighborhood that treat many things that Aveson does with apprehension and mistrust. (My response, look at their test scores). Let’s try to give the school the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps what’s really needed is the chance for them to improve communications within the community. Maybe Mr. Pomeroy would benefit from a visit to one of the school’s community forums. Then he’d see that the overreactive people who promote the arts are in grades K-10.

Indeed, it seems that Aveson might have made a mistake in inviting a graffiti artist to their Jubilee. Especially, with so many critical eyes in the community.

… and Aveson wants High Schoolers there when, while not 100% proven, it is quite probable that their activities as an elementary school incites this sort of activity?

Although I disagree with her take on the blog and the graffiti incident, it is too bad Ms. Lyford is giving up on this. This is a neighborhood vandalism issue not an Art History lesson, and community members do not look at this in the same detached way as she does and cannot elevate it to a purely academic discussion. Maybe Ms. Lyford has some knowledge of Aveson art programs or some connection that wasn’t clear in what she wrote. If so that could have been explained, but now maybe it is too late.

Ms. Lyford first uses the terms “inflammatory,” “hard to swallow,” “demonize,” and “hostility” to describe the post; not exactly trying to lower the “rhetoric” or “negative language” she mentions in her second communication. There is not one word I can find in either communication that says such vandalism is bad. This seems to imply that any stationary surface should be fair game for graffiti and the owner must at least ponder the possibility that it is art.

I believe the point that may have been missed is even if no graffiti had appeared the day after the Aveson Jubilee, the fact that a Craigslist advertisement and other websites indicated that Mr. Walker was providing both “a demonstration and tutorial” suggests a kind of a how-to outcome. Maybe college students can easily separate graffiti into art and vandalism, but middle school and high school kids may see it as more of a fun thing to try. This is why the promotion by the school is so disturbing even without linking it to the disaster in the Canyon.

Putting myself in Shifty’s shoes, I can see a parent maybe chancing it for 2 ½ hours before 1:00 pm when the rap started, especially with Shifty watching closely a young daughter unlikely to tend toward graffiti. But for those parent’s who allowed their under 12 kids to run up for a Jonny U promo CD, what were they thinking? For Shifty to write “Aveson promotes a philosophy of respect and being responsible” doesn’t fit with Aveson knowingly promoting and sanctioning by their advertising these performers who routinely use vile and misogynistic language readily available on the Internet to K-12 students. The Altadena community can differentiate between these despicable practices and bobbing for apples, even if Aveson cannot.

I would like to ask those who cry in defense of the tag “artists” to post their home and work addresses so that they could be direct beneficiaries of that which they feel we all should appreciate, admire, and pay dearly to have removed. Of course there is always the shootings and death that result from this stuff but that doesn’t seem to concern some in this community. It is art, after all, isn’t it?

I would like to echo Amy’s disappointment. The use of quotes around artist every time graffiti is mentioned suggests an attitude already formed without any actual information about the artist and his work. And repeat of the phrase “graffiti artists” when describing the vandalism at Eaton Canyon provides further clue that the author thinks that the term graffiti art only applies to illegal acts.

Not having been at the event I don’t have information on the actual behavior of the performers. But I will say that there are very valuable aspects of hip-hop culture, graffiti art, and other similar forms of expression. Perhaps the performers chosen were not the best role models. Or perhaps the negative responses here are a kneejerk reaction to cultural production that falls outside some mainstream ideas of what constitutes proper artistic expression. Given some of the sweeping generalizations appearing in this comment thread I’m certainly not convinced that it isn’t the latter.

There is nothing valuable about vandalizing public and private property – I don’t care how colorful it is or how talented the person is doing it.

The freeway is not a canvas, neither is Eaton Canyon –