There are two types of graffiti: one rambling, obscure, and sometimes offensive, the other more tangible, more political and accessible. Whatever negative associations people sometimes have of graffiti and whatever steps are taken against it are usually the result of a perception based on the first kind of graffiti. But I believe there are often enough examples of the second kind to demonstrate that graffiti deserves more consideration. If, after all, there is any value to it at all, then it deserves something more than automatic dismissal despite our comfortable and cherished notions of privacy and property.

In walking the streets of Toronto, I find it's simple enough to collect examples of fairly useless, or even damaging graffiti: stupid racist remarks, empty slogans, illegible signatures or comments like "Nick and Gloria sparkle." How excellent for Nick and Gloria. But the more overtly political and useful examples of graffiti are everywhere too. Here are some examples from the Toronto area:

Greed = Death
Just because YOU said so?
Fur is Dead
Creative survival
The most common way people lose power is by thinking they don't have any
Happiness can be yours forever! Order now!
Peace, no religion

In yet another category of Toronto graffiti are the cryptic yet interesting examples, like "Fix Signs," and in the category of trite but somehow warming comes "I Love You," placed at least a dozen times all over the downtown core this summer, as unconditional as they are blunt.

Anywhere attempts are made to smother freedom of speech, graffiti becomes an affordable, accessible method of communication. In El Salvador, graffiti takes the form of important and passionate social commentary:

We demand Freedom
Today it's the turn of the victim
The People first
Respect for the rights of others is peace

While living in Scotland, I noticed that a public debate had taken place entirely through graffiti. The first remark had been a confused, general statement about gay men (as opposed to pedophiles) sexually abusing children. Someone crossed out the remark and commented on the ignorance of the first person, and then the first person had returned to not only cross out the second person's comments but include a threatening remark as well. All the remarks were still legible, though, resulting in a permanent posted conversation that fairly obviously demonstrated that the first person was completely inflexible in his beliefs and would allow no dissent.

At Maeshowe, a Stone Age tomb in Scotland, there are examples of historical graffiti. In the twelfth century several groups of Norsemen broke into the tomb and left markings, some as simple as "Ingigerth is the most beautiful of all women," with the image of a slavering dog carved next to it. Another man stood on some shoulders or got a boost in order to write, "Tholfir Kolbeinsson carved these runes high up." Other runes explain the Viking's purpose, but the most startling thing is that the majority of examples, like the ones that I've provided, demonstrate how amazingly similar it is to modern graffiti. The simple fact that they've survived almost a thousand years gives them historical value and, therefore, legal protection, yet present attempts to make permanent statements are the acts of "vandals."

Some simply assume that everyone hates graffiti, and websites advertise cleaning services that fight those "vandals and their weapons of destruction - cans of spray paint and colored markers." The use of the words "vandals," and "weapons" particularly struck me. My dictionary defines a vandal as someone who willfully damages or destroys things, especially beautiful or valuable ones (doesn't strike me as fair when applied to graffiti, which has the potential to be esthetically pleasing, and may cover a neutral or unused surface). The Vandals were a member of the Germanic peoples living south of the Baltic who plundered Gaul, Spain, and North Africa and even sacked Rome in AD 455, destroying many books and works of art. Again, not a very good fit with messages between citizens tucked away in alleys or emblazoned on corners.

As a culture we make little or no official effort to preserve or at least photograph what these "vandals" have done with their "weapons" before whitewashing it. The obvious lessons being that something must survive in order to be called history, but also that we choose what survives, and are in the habit of being extremely shortsighted about it, or leaving it to luck, as demonstrated by Maeshowe.

Today graffiti isn't legal, so it becomes difficult to trace the whereabouts and details of all those who do it, but I suspect most graffiti is done by young people, whether they call themselves artists or not. I say this not just because it's rebellious but also because young people don't yet have the same kind of investment in society, and have a different perspective, a slightly distanced position. Not only are they still defining an identity and searching for a role, they may be more capable on some level of recognizing a basic unfairness: that a message with money behind it is called advertising while a public one is mere graffiti.

The message of most graffiti may not be about struggle, but its existence does involve an ongoing struggle between those who have and those who don't. It is not the wealthiest people who leave graffiti. It's more likely to be someone young, someone poor, or someone who is poor because they are young. Those of us who are most fiercely opposed to it are likely those of us who can afford to own at least a home if not other buildings, and take offense to anyone who would stain it with their own personal message. Yes, it can be an unwelcome intrusion on private property, but it's possibly the voice of someone who may never own his or her own house, business or anything else, which only leaves them the option of needling, in some small way, those who have money and power. This is perhaps the best reason for someone to call cans of spray paint weapons - they create the potential for a permanent, articulate voice for the disadvantaged. If it allows those who have less to be articulate, and critical of those who have more, naturally anyone in the better position will see it as a "weapon."

I don't believe I would want to live in a world where every inch of space cries out for my attention, (regardless of whether they were ads or private thoughts). But I also encourage everyone to be open to reading graffiti and to think of it as something that, like poetry, puts a finger on the real and honest pulse of the world. There is little financial profit in something like poetry, but there is even less in graffiti (in fact there is the risk of arrest, and it's fair to assume a belief in the importance of the statement to take such a risk. I've noticed that the more meaningful messages are concise, to conserve time in writing it, and the more useless one are to be found all over alleys and in more hidden locations). This kind of logical assumption in the basic sincerity of Graffiti has led corporations to try and co-opt it in advertising campaigns giving the impression - as long as you don't think about it too hard - that the word on the street favours whatever corporation uses it. But ultimately, this has to be rejected. Graffiti is not a contrived or manufactured thing designed to make money. And for that reason alone, we should be willing to watch and read.