I feel compelled to respond to the comments regarding "soulless graffiti" made by John W Tatum (Letters, March 20), in which the art which adorns the otherwise bland, grey concrete walls of our so-called openminded and culture-rich city was described as "overbearingly ugly, crude and garish".

Not only is graffiti (rather than tagging) a greatly respected artform in its own right, people also pay hundreds of pounds for canvases painted by the same graffiti artists who spray our cities.

For some young people it is also a doorway to a better way of life.

Imagine having been brought up on a concrete, high-rise housing estate with no prospects or colour in your life.

Even if only one in a thousand young people from a disadvantaged way of life realises their potential through graffiti and takes it to a further level, it still breeds hope and determination for others. This can only be viewed as a positive in today's struggling world.

Consider the fact that the majority of the participating artists originate from the lessadvantaged sectors of our towns and cities, and quite often feel they are without a voice when it comes to social and political decisions which affect people in this country.

Graffiti is a very intelligent, creative and, most importantly, harmless form of expression.

Any form of expression is essential for survival of the soul.

I therefore fail to see how anyone can call graffiti "soulless". In my opinion, there is nothing more soulless than a bland, grey concrete wall.

  • Adele Hammond, Cromwell Road, Hove