Have you ever met anyone who calls themselves a tagger? I have known a few and I'm not sure I would say they do it for, "complex psychological unnatural reasons."

A large part I imagine is a complete disassociation between what they are doing and the repercussions of their actions. And while the word vandal is applicable in this situation, I think its negative connotation is not a step forward in solving the problem.

It would be great for each side to stop viewing the other as the enemy. It's good to hear your perspective on this issue and I enjoyed the article.

Geoff, If you were walking down the street and someone jumped you for $200, I doubt that you would see them as a friend. A building owner is essentially being robbed of the amount he/she must shell out to paint over the graffiti because the city mandates that the owner be fined if he/she does not do so.

I've never heard any graffiti victim call a tagger their enemy, and I am puzzled as to why a tagger might view a victim as their enemy. You must know that victims cannot speak to the vandal because the tagger never reveals him/herself. So how can victims be part of the problem solving? Taggers are in effect, "a thief in the night."

On the other hand, the tagger can speak to the victim to explain to the building owner why he/she did the tagging--even offer to paint it out. But I've never heard of any of them doing that. IF they did, that would certainly be a great step forward on their part to solving the problem.

I agree "vandal" is not a positive term--neither is the term "robber." But the reality is that a robber robs and a vandal vandalizes. So people tend to "call 'em as they sees 'em."

Incidentally, like many people with psychological problems, taggers often do not realize that they have such problems or admit to having them. Those are not my words but the words of psychologists and psychiatrists. Certainly such behavior is not normal or benign--those with psychological problems often engage in abnormal and destructive behavior.

I find it very hard to believe your "disassociation" theory. Even a child knows the consequences of their actions, i.e. steal your playmate's toy and the playmate hits or grabs it back.

But since you have advanced the theory and have known taggers, let's test it! I would welcome being proven wrong. It would be great if one of your tagger acquaintances would write his/her perspective.

Once I've read that, lets get the vandals and the victims together. I'm very serious in saying, wouldn't it be terrific if we could solve this costly problem by some dialogue between the two??? Now it's up to them, right???

Dale, I also think that this idea of labeling taggers as people with psycological problems is pretty ridiculous. What is it about public vandalism that we find so unnatural. Destructive, yes. Wasteful and costly, no doubt. But there is nothing about defacing public property that is quantifiably linked to mental instability, if anythings it's a bit devious but nowhere near as harmful and destructive behavior or assault. That being said, if a vandals were given more talent, more training, or better venues would it lessen the severity of their so called 'mental problems'.

Taggers are essentially your 'thieves in the night' and they hide their identity due to the illegal nature of their process. It's only illegal if you say, that's mine you can't do that, if I catch you, I'm filing charges. If you open the doors the this art form and remove the labels of vandal, robber and thief, you remove the conflict, cut costs, save time and there is no longer a fear of retribution. They would not have to conceal their identity for fear of prosecution and the relationships can flourish.

Here's a post I wrote about this and a video with a solution.
http://capitalcreativecollective.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/want-not-waste-not/

Here's what it can be if you stop fighting, and empower the artists.
http://www.woostercollective.com/

You're right, let's create a dialogue and change the way we interact with this public art. It's not a crime it's an art. The real crime is how we deal with it.

Dale,
Can you elaborate on the complex psychological issues behind "tagging" and maybe even the difference between what animals do to mark their territory and how "tagging" is in no way similar. It seems to me a way of conveying territorial boundaries, which would make it at very least some what similar to what animals do.

Perhaps there is some kind of medical journal which has dealt with a correlation between a mental disorder and the act of tagging. I certainly would hope that you weren't simply making a broad generalization about people who break the laws in any fashion and alleging that breaking the law means that you must have some kind of psychological disorder. I have a tail light out...

Jake, I clearly separated graffiti with art merit from tagger vandalism in the beginning of the storyline. In fact, I offered to connect one or more of those with artistic ability with someone who would like to offer a wall. I highly respect those artistic skills.

So not sure why or how you missed that very important distinction. I checked out the websites you suggested. They too lump vandalism with art--giving the latter a bad name.

Jake and Jennette. There are numerous references throughout the world linking graffiti vandalism to other anti-social behavior and related psychological disorders. As I said, it is complex.

Meanwhile I'm still waiting to hear from the artists.

Dale -
If you "call 'em as you sees 'em," perhaps you should consider the etymological significance of such labeling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals). There is a political dimension to destructive acts that needs to be taken into account and you can not simply attack the symptom of tagging without understanding that it is the product of far more complex social issues (not psychological ones). Through your own terminology you enact what many taggers are rebelling against - the establishment of normative conditions that ostracize and silence those who do not fit your understanding of what is "natural" or "normal". You have said that taggers are "thieves in the night," but what worries me more are those that rob me with their words during the day. And what a shame you are now paying more for your hamburger and fries.

As a journalist, I'd imagine you at very least have a couple of sources for such a claim no?

The research that I have done over the years focuses more on the psychological, but I agree that there are sociological factors too--the two are often entwined. In fact, as you must know, there is disagreement within those fields as to what acts are primarily socially and primarily psychologically motivated.

It usually depends on the individual and their physical condition, mental state and/or social environment. One does not necessarily exclude the other as you appear to be suggesting.

Fortunately those taggers whom you defend by YOUR saying that they feel "ostracized" and are "rebelling against" have numerous ways of making themselves and their concerns known to society. First, did they every try to participate? ANONYMOUSLY, vandalizing innocent victims property is not one way to gain a voice.

But to conclude, as you and they apparently have, that vandalizing someone's property justifies their action for their grievance suggests that anyone who has a perceived grievance against society is justified in committing any antisocial act they feel like. Taken to the logical extreme, that is lawlessness.

Don't you think that the vandals themselves would object to their property being disrespected--even if they owned nothing more than their backpack and someone vandalized it.

Please read my comments carefully. Your response will have more meaning. You did get it right that I wrote the issue was complex. BUT normalcy is not MY defintion. Neither is it MY opinion that graffiti taggers have psychological problems. I did not write that I "calls them as I sees 'em" because I don't--I placed it in quotes-- nor did I say I ate hamburgers and fries because I don't.

But a lot of persons with limited incomes do eat less expensive foods and the minority owner is trying to make a living--both are victims. Think for a moment and be concerned about them. That remark gives me the impression that you consider hamburger and fries beneath you and can afford more expensive foods.

Your caustic, superior sounding "what a shame" remark, which was erroneously directed to me, also conveniently omits the cost to the students and their parents, tenants (low income and market rate) and other folks I mentioned earlier as being victims. Tell THEM "what a shame."

I doubt that you are interested but tagging in the form of etching windows costs thousands of dollars--a minimum of $1,000 per panel depending on the size victim property owner have told me.

Another minority owner of one very reasonably priced restaurant serving healthy food said that he spent $3500 to replace large etched window panels only to have them again etched two weeks later.

He said that was the last straw. Operating on too narrow a profit margin to support his family, he said that he could afford to spend no more, closed his business and went elsewhere. Tell HIM "what a shame."

Meanwhile I still wait to hear from the graffiti artists.

"Vandals do it for complex psychological unnatural reasons"

Elaborate. You're completely dodging this.

"Neither is it MY opinion that graffiti taggers have psychological problems."

If it's not your opinion then who's is it? Please please please please maintain some kind of journalistic integrity and give me some kind of source for this, hell, even a source for these "owners" who have their property vandalized. Your story, or maybe just your method for writing it without a single real source, leaves me nothing but the impression that this is your opinion.

I didn't dodge, but I don't do research for folks either. That is up to each one of us to do for ourselves. If I did that, I could be accused of showing only one side of the issue. I wrote earlier about resources-- look up the psychological and sociological discussions on the internet--they come from all over the world.

I based my statements from that, books, news articles from various magazines and papers in other cities. I had conversations with social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists whom I know.

I met with the victims, city PD and graffiti code enforcement officers. I've done to reach an informed decision if you're interested in objectivity.

I've offered to connect with graffiti artists because I know of a wall available. I said I admired their work. But you ignore that.

I'd be happy to meet with taggers too or communicate by sacpress.com with them or the taggers to get their view--but they remain anonymous so no one can talk to them. No one can establish communication with a phantom.

You write as if you have some inside information from them or have connections with them. Please, I want to hear directly from them.

When you've done the above that, let's have another discussion.

I concede. I will go ahead and quickly reread your comments with a degree of care, and perhaps you will join in and read yourself in return. I'll start from the beginning, saving my commentary on all of the more unfortunate elaborations for another day. And I will try to avoid any remarks regarding editing issues, as these can be dealt with on your own time.

"On my morning walk today, I noted additional new graffiti in midtown." -
You have made an observation. Thanks for sharing. What did you do about it, besides write an article for the Sac Press?

"As readers may have noticed, there two distinct types of graffiti." -
Why would we 'readers' have noticed this? Is this an empirical truth? Is it only a matter of time before I notice this fact, which is ever so obvious to someone as keen as yourself? Is how you notice things the same as how the rest of us 'readers' notice things? Is it my noticing that makes this typological distinction possible or is it a transcendental truth? How is such typological distinction determined? Why are there only two distinct types and how can we account for graffiti that does not fit into this established binary?

"One type has some artistic merit." -
How have you come to this conclusion? What gives it merit? Do I know it when I see it? Who is given the authority to determine said artistic merit?

"The other type is made by vandals, including gangs, who mark their territory--much like dogs and cats when they urinate on various surfaces." -
Is the marking of territory the only reason for such an act? If it is "their territory" are they not free to mark it? If it is not "their territory" then whose territory is it and how are such territorial claims legitimized? What forms of territorial marking are legal and how has this been established? Is the marking of a territory always considered vandalism when committed by a human? Why was the clarification "including gangs" necessary? If it is a territorial claim then does graffiti done by an individual differ from graffiti done by a group? What is the metaphorical significance of likening vandals to dogs and cats? In what way is the act of a vandal different from those committed by a dog or a cat? What is the effect of such metaphorical dehumanization?

"Animals do it because it is their nature. Vandals do it for complex psychological unnatural reasons." -
Are humans not animals as well? What makes humans distinct from animals? If it is natural for animals to mark territory then why is it unnatural for humans to do so? What does it mean for something to be deemed unnatural? Who is given the authority to make such a diagnosis? In what service does such a diagnosis serve? What implications are there to such negative labeling? If vandals do it for "complex psychological unnatural reasons" then is tagging merely a symptom of larger psychological issues? If it is a psychological issue then how does this relate to territorial claims? Where the Magdalenians also a culture overrun by roaming groups of psychologically aberrant and unnatural reasoners?

"Those who paint graffiti for art purposes, sometimes find a permanent spot for their work."
And what about those that do it for other reasons? Why would a permanent spot for such work be granted and why would it not? Do all taggers desire to have a permanent spot for their work? Why would some not desire this? Is the tag what is important or the act itself? If you grant a tagger legitimacy by calling it art and give graffiti a permanent venue what effect does this have on the act itself? Why would many taggers be weary of such purported opportunity?

"I'm told that some photograph their work and sell it to interested magazines or for CD and DVD covers." -
I'm told lots of things too. Isn't that great.

"If any of them read this article, respond in comments, and I'll refer him/her to at least one property owner who would like to discuss some walls for painting." -
I hope you don't end up with any of the psychologically unnatural ones. They could be dangerous. This is surely a sincere offer, though after being cast in such a negative light I doubt many taggers would even want to converse with you let alone accept your 'generosity.' And if you have already separated taggers into two distinct groups, then aren't you just saying you have space for someone to offer up their 'artistic' services while ignoring the issue of vandalism?

Sorry David, but you are so intent on proving yourself right, attacking me, misinterpreting my statements, repeating shallow platitudes, twisting the meaning of what I wrote and defending graffiti vandalism that I find a rational discussion with you impossible.

It is even clearer now that you have no intention of cooperating with the vandals, victims and appropriate city staff to help resolve the problem, which I have tried to do for several years now. The fact that you again dismiss the costs to victims and their patrons, sends the message to me that you have no interest in positive contributions.

Step aside. As I said before, I wait to hear from the actual graffiti artists or vandals and will happily communicate with them. They have nothing to fear from me--I'm no officer of the law.

It saddens me that we appear to be speaking a different language.
Good luck with your quest. I hope you are able to save my buildings from the vandals of the future.

David, and any others who enamored of graffiti vandals, check out the following story in today's BEE. You think I'm bad? Check out comments following and you were beating me up for trying to get cooperation for a solution Note their solutions.

(http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1472112.html)

Dale, regarding your request to have the "vandals" comment. I must apologize that they are probably not responding because they are probably not yet reading the site. It is our responsibility at The Press to get the word out more and hopefully in the future we can get more perspectives.

Dale I don't think anyone wants to beat you up and I hope that you appreciate the higher level discourse that goes on, on this site versus the Bee. Although some of the commenters on the Bee's website agreed with your sentiment I think you, in just one comment, contributed far more useful discourse.

On the issue in general I respect your point that vandalism in the form of tagging is harmful to businesses and the community at large. My concern is that in general we do not take an aggressive and adversarial stance toward *any* criminal activity. I believe that people in general tend to be good in nature. Often circumstance leads people down a certain path and that is mendable.

My greatest fear is a mob mentality, like the one present on the comment section of the aforementioned Bee article. I hope that everyone who has commented here at least feels that this discourse is more productive, even if marginally so, than the angry mob on The Bee's website.

I share your fear of the mob mentality. Knowing so many victims, I well know that it is out there. One of the reasons I wrote the article was to invite the vandals to the table and let those whose works have artistic merit (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) know that there can be a market for their expression.

I regret that my attempts to (1) educate the public, including the vandals, as to the costs of graffiti to ALL of us, which feeds that mob mentality and (2) bring people, including the taggers, together to resolve the problem, were seen as attacks on them.

However, you seem to understand my points totally. Thank you.

You are probably right that no taggers have not read the article yet. I had hoped that those who so fiercely defended that vandalism might be speaking from experience of knowing one or more and had extended my invitation to them. Obviously I was too optimistic.

But Geoff, I'm patient. If the message reaches them and they do respond, then all of the afore hostility will have served a purpose. If they don't, that is their choice.

The midtown business association (916)442-1500 offers free cleanup to businesses that have been hit by graffiti. please know that some great art has its root in graffiti and not every writer is a vandal and not all graffiti writers put their throws in places that cause damage. a lot of people only paint legal walls and canvas or their own property for practice.

Oh give me a fucking break. All you have to do to get rid of the tags is have a 10 dollar bucket of paint in the closet at your business. How many seconds does it take for you to walk out and paint over it? You act like its the end of the world or something. Why don't you save your worries for bigger issues such as the war in Iraq or the Climate?

Most "Graffiti Writers" do what they do for one reason, that reason is to be known. Everyone wants to do good in their profession or whatever they are doing in life so they make a name for themselves. Its the same thing.

Most graffiti writers don't adhere to the idea of property ownership, I guess you could say that many have a communist view on life. Why should CBS or Viacom be able to advertise wherever they want? Because they have money. Oh well....graffiti writers usually don't have a ton of money and they are doing a pretty good job of giving their collective middle finger to urban douche bags who live their magazine style minimalistic life.

we don't like being called vandals so don't call us vandals. we are artists and should be called by such name and treated like an artist instead of a criminal. i think it's bullshit that most graffiti artists that get caught get in more trouble than gang members. it really pisses me off that people don't understand that graffiti is an art. the only difference between graffiti and a painting is that graffiti is on a wall with spray paint and paintings are done with paint and hung on walls