Framing Graffiti as Art. Can graffiti be considered art? Since the late 1970s when graffiti began to appear in art

Transcription

1 Ysselstein 1 Geraldine Ysselstein, Student#: Instructor: Ghaida Naeem ENGL 111: Module 7 Final Essay 21 November 2011 Framing Graffiti as Art Can graffiti be considered art? Since the late 1970s when graffiti began to appear in art galleries in New York City, there has been controversy over whether it is an acceptable art practice or not. While graffiti combines elements of art with self-expression, media reports often encourage a negative understanding of graffiti by linking it to crime. Additionally, municipalities and businesses spend a significant amount of their budget removing graffiti in an attempt to create a safe environment. In his essay Defense of Graffiti, Toronto writer Alex Boyd acknowledges that there are cruel and useless examples of graffiti including: stupid racist remarks, empty slogans, [and] illegible signatures (par. 2), but he proposes that there are more overtly political and useful examples of graffiti... everywhere too (par. 2). Graffiti is considered an illegal crime, but it should also be understood as an art form crossing the boundaries of method, location, and motivation. There are two main methods for creating graffiti in the public sphere: tagging and murals. Tagging is the most popular form of graffiti found on trains, buses, fence posts, and street walls. Graffiti writers use magic markers and spray paint to mark their territory through a stylized signature of words and words symbols. The goal is to place their signature tag in as many places as possible in order to receive recognition from their peers. The visibility of graffiti was intensified in the 1980s when tagging became associated with the Hip-Hop culture along

2 Ysselstein 2 with rap music and break dancing (Kan 20). The act of tagging is connected not only with Hip- Hop culture, but also with gang graffiti because they both show letters, numbers, and symbols. However, Mark Halsey, professor of law at the Flinders University of South Australia; and Alison Young, professor of criminology at the University of Melbourne argue it should not be assumed that the presence of graffiti [including tagging] automatically denotes the existence of gangs (170). Some graffiti writers will develop their tagging into the more intricate form of murals. Murals refer to large elaborate works that can be found on the exterior of trains and buildings. Some argue that murals have a closer association with the art world because they require more skill, time, space, dedication, and supplies which is not necessarily required when tagging (Bowen 24-25; Halsey and Young 173). While gangs might use murals to make claim of their territory, most graffiti artists create murals to improve the community they live in. Furthermore, building owners, shopkeepers, and school officials use murals to make a blank wall more aesthetically attractive. Understanding graffiti as either vandalism or art is complex not only because of the method that is used, but also because of the different locations in which it exists. For example, the progression of graffiti moving from the street to the art gallery in the late 1970s and early 1980s in New York City created a misconception of graffiti. Graffiti was considered art if it was displayed in an art gallery, but as Toronto researcher Tracey Bowen writes, outside the confines of the gallery it was vandalism (35). The visibility of graffiti on trains, buildings, and bus stops has led some organizations like Graffiti Hurts in the United States to organize communities with the purpose of eradicating graffiti from public spaces. While Moreau and

3 Ysselstein 3 Alderman recognize the intention of Graffiti Hurts is to care for public spaces and make them safe, the authors argue that the care is at the exclusion of certain individuals and groups of people ( ). Cleaning graffiti from public spaces is a challenge for municipalities and business owners because it is expensive and a never-ending job. A wall that is painted over becomes a clean slate for more graffiti. While cleaning is usually considered a good thing to do, Moreau and Alderman point out that In other contexts, such as Neolithic cave paintings, cleaning the surfaces may well be considered inexcusable and can generate feelings of lost culture rather than gained cleanliness (115). With that in mind, at what point does graffiti earn historical value of socio-political events rather than be deemed as vandalism (Boyd par. 6; Halsey and Young 167)? Moreover, if city officials are concerned about maintaining a clean look for their cities, why aren t they concerned about the number of billboards, logos, images, and signs that clutter the urban landscape? The next question is: who creates graffiti and what is his or her motivation for creating graffiti? Many assume that the youth, unemployed, and low income areas in cities are responsible because they are bored, antisocial, and involved in criminal activity (Halsey and Young 170). It is true that youth are responsible for much of the graffiti that occurs; however, there are as many graffiti writers from low income families as middle-and upper-middle class families. Graffiti artists from all demographics are motivated by recognition from their peers and the opportunity for fame. They are not necessarily motivated by boredom or the urge to rebel. Rather, they seek to express a thought, desire, or share an interest with the general public. The

4 Ysselstein 4 passerby is then invited to stop, reflect, and engage in the graffiti dialogue. In addition, Boyd observes, Graffiti becomes an affordable method of communication (par. 4) for artists to voice their concerns, challenge the meaning of public space, and make a political statement (Moreau and Alderman ). For example, in Melbourne graffiti has been used to protest the Gulf War, the destruction of old-growth forests, trends in corporate downsizing or job losses, and to share information about times and locations of rallies (Halsey and Young 170). Graffiti is also done for aesthetic reasons. It can make a blank wall more attractive through the elements of art including: form, colour, line, shape, space, texture, value, and style. Finally, many graffiti artists consider their work as public art: a gift intended to improve the aesthetics surrounding their environment and community (Kan 20; Bowen 22). Graffiti is a complex phenomenon that can be better understood when looking at its style, place, and purpose. Accepting graffiti as art if it is in an art gallery implies that if graffiti is in its proper place and profitable, that makes it acceptable. On the other hand, graffiti is considered a crime if it is in an urban environment and challenges the authority to be there. The reality is that it doesn t matter how much legal enforcement there is to eradicate graffiti, it is not going to disappear. The challenge then for municipalities and business owners is to have a dialogue with graffiti artists in order to discern graffiti as art rather than crime.

5 Ysselstein 5 Works Cited Bowen, Tracey E. Graffiti Art: A Contemporary Study of Toronto Artists. Studies in Art Education 41.1 (Autumn 1999): Print. Boyd, Alex. In Defense of Graffiti. Bookninja. Web. 21 Oct Halsey, Mark and Alison Young. The Meanings of Graffiti and Municipal Administration. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 35.2 (2002): Print. Kan, Koon-Hwee. Adolescents and Graffiti. Art Education 54.1 (January 2001): Print. Moreau, Terri and Derek H. Alderman. Graffiti Hurts and the Eradication of Alternative Landscape Espressioni. The Geographical Review (January 2011): Print.