Rethinking Graffiti - Essay Example

Graffiti as Art Form There is no clear or consistent definition of the term ‘graffiti’ as its meaning changes with the person providing the definition. In some instances, it is considered to be art, but in others, these merits are either ignored or not present. In these cases, it is considered to be something illegal and anti-social because it is generally practiced in derelict portions of the city and without the permission of the building owners. Attempting to present an objective viewpoint, Stowers (2005) insists “Graffiti is art … The reasons, including aesthetic criteria, as to why it is an art form far outweigh the criticism of illegality, incoherence, and nonstandard presentation.” Other than the illegal act of painting on an unsanctioned public or private property space, some types of graffiti fall definitely within the bounds of an artistic definition while others do not, and the problem is not simply a clear cut distinction between image production or words scratched out on a surface but instead rests on a rather subjective definition of art as it is understood by the mainstream, hegemonic conception of the mass media. “We must examine our assumptions about acceptable versus undesirable public acts, and look at the vast gray area in between” (Bowen, 1999). In attempting to discover the meaning and definition of graffiti, it is important to look at it from the standpoint of its unsanctioned element, its ability to convey the thoughts and ideas of the ‘voiceless’ minorities and its growing recognition as a form of art. Because of its unsanctioned element and its wide variations, the legitimacy of graffiti as an art form is constantly questioned. According to Bowen, the practice of graffiti first emerged as a phenomena called tagging. Tagging consists of different artists contriving ways of marking their initials or names in strongly stylized lettering and using these marks to denote places they either claimed as their territory or as a means of informing others that the territory had been infiltrated. “Territorialism, as opposed to creativity and art, was the main motivation for the 1970s and 1980s New York graffiti artists. Their graffiti was considered vandalism, and was studied by sociologists, urban planners and anthropologists until placed in commercial galleries as art and critiqued by art historians and educators” (Bowen, 1999, 24). As the taggers began to add more colors and images to their designs, graffiti became more advanced and started to cross the line between defacement and art. For many, therefore, it is considered the art of the streets. It was because of the easy accessibility to surfaces such as the subway cars in New York and the ability to gain widespread recognition throughout a large geographical area as these cars moved through the city that first gave rise to the art form in the 1970s (Stowers, 2005). Through this medium, “art was delivered throughout the boroughs … bring[ing] the mountain to Mohammed” (Sadeghi, 2006). The unique position of graffiti enables it to become a voice of the common people. It is recognized as “one of the strongest assertions of individual identity in the art world” (Sadeghi, 2006). Because it is one of the only art forms not constrained within the mass media and political agendas, it is able to express the viewpoints of the oppressed, to connect with the emotions of the downtrodden and to celebrate the victories of the little people. “It was originally placed without consent into the public sphere … This work defies the socially ‘acceptable’ forms of representation and exhibition, preferring a milieu that is at street level, a kind of urban midway” (Sadeghi, 2006). The typically subversive nature of this art thus becomes a tool for the anti-hegemonic resistance, speaking on an individual level with those who live at the street level and perceive that they are being asked to adapt to a world-view that is outside of or in opposition to their own sphere of experience. The excitement of moving outside of the circles of the officially sanctioned, government approved and corporately supported dominant viewpoint of the fabulously wealthy is captured in the graffiti artist’s ability to capture a sense of the observations, struggles and triumphs of the common man, beginning to re-establish connections and re-enforcing personal observations that strike against the claims of the powers that be. As the fans of Banksy noted, this ability to speak to the concerns of the common man has re-asserted their impression that their voices are important, too. These claims for the impact of one graffiti artist in London are echoed in the findings of studies regarding graffiti art. In study after study, it is found that the graffiti artist is saying something that most of his contemporaries on the street have been prevented from saying for any number of reasons – lack of confidence, fear of reprisal, etc. Again, this is accomplished not just through the subject of the art, but also in the way in which the art is practiced. “The medium itself implies alienation, discontentment, marginality, repression, resentment, rebellion: no matter what it says, graffiti always implies a ‘fuck you’. Though addressing the larger society in this contemptuous manner may be a secondary or even tertiary element of the graffiti writer’s agenda, this element always lurks in the background of every graffito on every wall” (Phillips, 1999: 23). This message cannot be separated from the art form because of the nature of placing the art upon the unsanctioned spaces of the city. “We are used to taking our history from aristocrats and statesmen and their paid scribes. But through graffiti we discover evidence of another version of history, characterized by oppression and opposition to the official point of view. Topics too sensitive, too bigoted, too outrageous for the official version are the natural province [of graffiti]” (Reisner & Wechsler, 1974: vi). Like the larger social context, graffiti has similarly been demonstrated in case after case to have the kind of individual element noted above. “Through the act of graffiti, a second message may be promoted, which is central to its nature; the content of each graffiti piece is unique to the context and circumstances from which every individual writes. Thus, graffiti is not only a form of political resistance, but also remains a way by which people may assume a sense of cohesiveness, rallying around shared ideology” (Bartolomeo, 2001). To greater or lesser extent, depending upon the political and social conditions of a given area, graffiti continues to emerge as the voice of resistance, the portrait of the ‘other’ and a challenge to the status quo. As the debate continues on regarding what to do about the ‘graffiti problem’, it will have to confront the issues of providing space and voice to a dissenting element in a hegemonic world. It is unlikely that the issue will go away, either, as graffiti remains nearly the only form of art available to the general public, both as artists and as viewers. While museums and other exhibition halls remain open to the public occasionally, the works displayed increasingly reflect the same world view promoted by the dominant white upper class corporate identity and require both the cost of a ticket and a block of time in which the public can go see. Graffiti, on the other hand, exists where they live, peeks out from bare corners, brightens the world of the inner city and communicates symbols of togetherness, understanding and individualism in a world where these concepts seem to be fading out of existence. References Bartolomeo, Bradley J. (2001). “Cement or Canvas: Aerosol Art & The Changing Face of Graffiti in the 21st Century.” Graffiti. Available November 10, 2009 from Bowen, Tracey E. (Autumn 1999). “Graffiti Art: A Contemporary Study of Toronto Artists.” Studies in Art Education. Vol. 41, N. 1: 22-39. Hattenstone, Simon. (July 17, 2003). “Something to Spray.” Guardian Unlimited. Available November 10, 2009 from Parker, Dewitt H. (November 2003). “The Definition of Art.” The Principles of Aesthetics. Authorama. Available November 10, 2009 from Phillips, Susan. (1999). Wallbangin: Graffiti and Gangs in LA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reisner, Robert George & Wechsler, Lorraine. (1974). Encyclopedia of Graffiti. New York: MacMillan. Sadeghi, Sabrina. (2006). “Exhibition Road Show.” Tour press release. New York: Martinez Gallery. Available November 10, 2009 from Stowers, George C. (Fall 1997). “Graffiti Art: An Essay Concerning The Recognition of Some Forms of Graffiti As Art.” Art Crimes. Read More