"Style Wars" was the source of a lot of controversy in my day today. As a self-proclaimed artist, I fully hold the position that graffiti ultimately does no one harm, and should therefore be left alone. I am not saying legalize it, but I just do not see the problem with it. In my view, there are three types of graffiti: murals, tags, and offensive language. Graffiti murals are some of the most expressive and colorful paintings done in modern art, and can be provocative, rebellious, and generally make things more beautiful and interesting. They can spice up a dirty street corner or an old rusty subway car, and I take umbrage with anyone who uses the word "defacing" when describing these. Tags, while maybe not being the prettiest or most interesting, are still a part of a subculture that most people ignore on a regular basis because they don't have much money and zilch opportunities but that should be heard. I think it is extremely elitist and pretentious to deprive people of a chance to make their mark on the world and maybe do something with their lives when some might not have much other chance to. Offensive language and derogatory slurs may be put up along with tags and murals, but seriously, if this is the reason people want to get rid of graffiti then they might as well not stick their heads out of the door in the morning or listen to music or read the newspaper because nasty things are everywhere and censorship of an art form really wont change that much. 
Not only is graffiti colorful and expressive, but it can also provide social commentary. The vigilante artist Banksy is considered one of the most prominent of these opinionated graffiti artists, who has murals around the world that depict things from memorable movie scenes to a young girl patting down an Israeli soldier. Banksy's identity is still unknown today, though he is apparently being sought by the authorities to pay for his uncensored street art. This is graffiti like any other, in fact it may even be uglier than the murals put up by street artists on subways, but unlike the sometimes scribbly tags or distinctive murals which are associated with African American culture, these, having an obvious meaning to people outside of "the know" are generally met with more enthusiasm. I think that this attitude is rather stupid, because in a way it is prejudice: people automatically dislike what they do not understand.
Another example of this phenomenon is on the Berlin Wall: after 1989, what remained of the wall was decorated by local artists who visually commented on the political situation. One of the more famous of these murals include an enormous blue car crashing through the wall, symbolizing the destruction of the division of the city. This is a double-sided mural; the back end of the car is shown on the East Berlin side of the wall. Another depicts a mash of faces upside down and sideways, huddled together but very intricate and colorful. This mural stretches on and on, and is really an amazing piece.
 |
| My bedroom! Not quite done yet though. |
I love the idea of graffiti, and though I know that I will never be a part of that subculture or fully understand the reasons that they put their art up, the methods of doing it and the risks involved, simply because I was born very privileged, I still would love to put up a mural somewhere one day, just to support the idea of graffiti and maybe try and stop every attack that calls it "ugly" and "defacing public property." I had the exact same discussion with my parents that we had in class, and they took the more conservative view for once in their lives which completely surprised me. They even used the exact same phrase: "How would you like it if someone our an enormous mural on our house?" I said bring it, because I have already done one (halfway anyways) in my bedroom and I am itching to start another, so they better fear for our front porch in the middle of the night...
Image sources:
subway: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Rome_subway_graffiti.jpg
Banksy: http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/17banksyES_468x606.jpg
Berlin wall: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5009/5343443481_63e7f0ef3f.jpg
I really like this post Caro, and I especially like the pictures you added into it. I understand where you're coming from with your arguement on why graffiti should be accepted and how it is used as a form of self expression. I personally don't think that it should be legalized though. It's an interesting concept to think about. When I was in Spain, graffiti was everywhere, and since no one really cared it was never taken down. The fact that it was EVERYWHERE kind of made it seem more artistic. Since the graffiti wasn't in random splotches like it is here in America, but instead all over the place, it seemed a lot more intentional, and acceptable. Because of this, I understand where you're coming from. But then I think about my house and my belongings, and think that I wouldn't want someone that I didn't know taking them and drawing all over them....maybe dropping some f-bombs in the process...all over my nice new car, for example. It would really bother me! Like hello...I bought that car with a certain color for a reason. If I wanted it with a special design, I would order it with one. I think what really irks me out of the entire thing is that I would have no say in the matter. It would just be done...and all over my new item, whatever it may be. I would understand doing graffiti on a run down street corner or and underpass or some place that could really use some spicing up. But not on someone's building or a city's train car.
ReplyDeleteCaroline, I couldn't resist replying. I agree whole-heartedly that graffiti is an artistic and beautiful expression of the opinions of those who are underpriviledged. However, when you alter property that isn't yours, like Abbi's car, then it becomes a crime. A serious one? No, not really provided they didn't steal the materials and it doesn't lead to more boundry-pushing and crime. But it is a violation of the law nonetheless, though by voicing opinions through voting maybe you can change that. While some subway riders enjoy graffiti, others (who are New Yorkers and have just as much right to Public Transit as the writers) don't, and I would rager those who do like it are in the minority, so why should the minority override the majority? Plus, surely there are better mediums for this art than other's property. I would bet that the art would be a lot more effective in conveying its message and initiating change if it wasn't altering others' property
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the legality of graffiti, I'm not sure where I stand, because legalizing it seems rather pointless as people get away with it anyway and when its legal it takes some of the fun out of the game. But as for graffiti on a car or building, I agree that it would be annoying for the owner, but I do not think that this applies to train cars, which are public property. This is because first of all, they really were never pretty to begin with, secondly, because the medium that they provide to the artists is a mobile one that is able to spread their work throughout Manhattan for free--an occurrence that will not happen with a canvas or in a gallery--because everyone rides the subways in new york. And yes, there will be people who consider this trash, imposing on public property, and simply irritating, but isn't selfish for rich whites to get rid of art done by a hypothetical person living in a crappy house in a crappy neighborhood who is never going to sell paintings for 50 mil or work on Wall Street?
ReplyDeleteI was impressed with your radical stance in class, Caroline, when you suggested that the enforcement of anti-vandalism laws even amounts to "censorship." This continues to be an intriguing dilemma for me, because to some how "legalize" graffiti also steals it of part of its meaning. (If it were *everywhere*, out in the open, with no risk involved, it wouldn't "mean" the same thing?) Another way to put that is, the act of self-expression *in defiance* of this "censorhip" is only meaningful as an act of defiance if it's illegal?
ReplyDeleteThis is why Banksy's clever "statements" via images are so effective--they deliberately undermine "sanctioned" graffiti in the form of advertising (which we all tolerate to an incredible degree, if you ask me--it certainly doesn't beautify the landscape!). But then, not all public art functions as such defiance--and there's definitely a place for murals that are commissioned and publicly sanctioned (and many of these reflect a graffiti aesthetic--it doesn't make them a "sellout").
And the mural on your bedroom wall looks amazing! That kind of work would be welcome on the side of any building in downtown Champaign, if you ask me.