As a way to get this discussion going, I want to juxtapose two positions in this discussion about _white_space_. These are the two fluctuating poles I intend to oscillate between (lots of movement going on) in order to complicate both views and (hopefully) generate new ways of thinking about art and public spaces.
Here in Tallahassee, the city has made a strong stance in regards to “graffiti”–read their position here. Central to this position is the idea of “consent” by the “property owner, authorized agent or designee.” So what does “consent” entail? Who provides it? In public spaces (and specifically Tallahassee), is consent an available option?

The City of Tallahassee also provides an online reporting form to report a “graffiti event” which is then sent to the Tallahassee Police Department. I have to admit, I like this idea of “graffiti event”–it suggests to me the entire rhetorical situation of graffiti/street art (am I right to conflate the two?)–the colliding vectors of the artist, the community in which he or she creates art, the physical location of the art, the actual act of creating the art (and the material requirements of such an act), and the reason for the creation of the art in the first place. Perhaps Tallahassee understands street art better than we give them credit for?
On the other hand, check out this interview with Favianna Rodriguez about the potential of graffiti as a pedagogical tool, and as a way to promote social change while simultaneously building community.
Rodriguez challenges the stigma attached to graffiti and street art and proposes that graffiti can be “reused and repurposed” to emphasize the positive “code of conduct” already present in graffiti and street art. Check out Rodriguez’s work with the Eastside Cultural Center in East Oakland here.
So the question is: how can we get these two disparate poles to speak to each other?