My esteemed collleague,
Please pardon my delay in replying to your hortations as to new directions in my career. I have read your suggestions and have reflected upon the attendant circumstances and decided I could not represent these graffiti artists. They are using the law to oppress fair use and the spread of ideas, thus they're the antithesis to the origins of the graffiti movement. I say that as members of a community that has been misunderstood and prosecuted since the dawn of time they should be more responsive to attempts by others to enlighten the 85 percent on this art form. They should also be cognizant of the fact that they are using public space as their canvas and as such their art becomes a sort of semi-quasi-public domain cum national patrimony. My understand is if some graf artist came and tagged over their art they would not go and seek monetary damages for having had their mural defaced, no? Subsequent to the aforementioned facts, events, opinions or circumstances whyfore could they see damages for having their art untouched? It is a matter of great interest to me. Perchance your study at the intersection of hip hop and ethics will enlighten me?
Eagerly awaiting your response,
Big A
Ps: feel free to post this exchange to our widely read world wide webbian log (also known as a blog)
On 6/4/07, jesse.bailey@wtas.com <jesse.bailey@wtas.com> wrote:
i think you should practice in a new specialty niche of the law: representing graffiti artists and their greivances
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06
bi