Graffiti artist's uninvited quest

IF PICASSO himself rose from the dead and placed his work on a building without the owner's consent, he would be a criminal. Your article on the woman who cannot understand why it is a problem to paint on other people's property without their knowledge or consent distresses me ("Pixnit was here," Living/Arts, Jan. 3). Why encourage this violation of property rights?

As an architect and city planner for the past 30 years, I have spent countless hours working on public art, landscaping of public places, and facade renovations. The inclusion of art into the urban landscape can be miraculous, such as the subtle treatment in Cambridge's Quincy Square or the bold approach in Porter Square. Facades that incorporate artful signage or murals can be delightful. But these works come to us through a respectful community process, with the consent of property owners.

For you to publish an article about the surreptitious defacing of property late at night is a disservice , especially to other young people who might see the glamour in your story.

J. ROGER BOOTHE
Cambridge

BY ALLOWING Pixnit to leave serious questions of public vs. private property unanswered while she berates her detractors as unable to handle her "bite," the article casts a glow of self-serving arrogance over the whole world of street art.

Street art should be an ongoing conversation about public space, not something private property owners should have to deal with to satisfy some personal branding revolution by a selfish art student. I would have no objection to Pixnit if she were to engage in that conversation, but with the tagging of private property, she reduces herself to a vandal.

The implication that Pixnit's age, gender, and art degree are at all relevant to her message or legitimacy is preposterous as well, and antithetical to what street art should be about in the first place . It's not about people earning the supposed right through academia to tag private property, it's about the democratization of public space and the visual treatment of it.

Its a shame, really, because I happen to like Pixnit's art from an aesthetic standpoint, but her attitude and lack of respect reflect poorly on her, as this article reflected poorly on the Globe.

MARTIN PAVLINIC
Providence

UNSOLICITED GRAFFITI is not urban art even if it gives perps a thrill. How would the parents of these cityscape intruders, often the products of suburban homes, like their homes blotched?

Romanticizing uninvited graffiti isn't the answer. Providing canvas or plaster board in a congenial, legal, and agreed-upon environment might be.

JEAN GIBRAN
Boston