Artist Kent Twitchell on 'graffiti vandalism'
The muralist, who recently won a $1.1-million settlement, responds to Web chatter about spray paint and graffiti.
Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that L.A. artist Kent Twitchell had settled his lawsuit against the U.S. government and 11 other defendants for painting over his six-story mural "Ed Ruscha Monument" for $1.1 million. Here are his thoughts on comments he made about "graffiti vandalism." What do you think?
Reading through some of the Internet blogs from around the country responding to Diane Haithman's story, I see that there is sometimes confusion about my graffiti statements. I thought she covered it beautifully, and I liked the way she differentiated graffiti from spray paint used to vandalize. Still a few people won't allow the distinction.
I oppose spray paint when it is used to cover over murals and other public art. That alone is the reason "we cannot coexist" and the only reason. It is also the reason that L.A. is no longer the mural capital. How can it be when all the murals have been covered over with spray paint? I'm not against artists using spray paint to create murals, yet that seems to be the conclusion some have drawn. It's frustrating. I used spray cans myself to paint with in the early '60s.
It's all just a question of getting permission to paint on someone's property. Good manners. I encounter a growing number of people today who firmly believe it's our right to make marks or spray paint anywhere without permission. That's our "freedom of expression."
I don't know how this started. If I carefully painted a mural somewhere without permission, I would be a vandal with a #6 watercolor brush. Otherwise we may as well drop the word vandal from the dictionary. It isn't the spray can that's wrong, it's the lack of concern for the rights of others not to have their wall or front porch or car . . . or forehead covered with someone else's "free expression."
--
Kent Twitchell
