Disclaimer: The subject and the title of this thread are not mine. I just read an interesting article in my university's student magazine. Have to get inspiration from somewhere. The rest of this post is my own. Unless I quote, clearly. Any quotes will be from the article.
Tagging and graffiti. What is the distinction? Do you admire them? Are you repulsed by them? Maybe you make them?
Assuming most of us live in cities, we've all seen it. Graffiti is about as synonymous with cities as roads and crappy McDonald's restaurants. But what is it? How do we differentiate between someone scribbling their name (oh-so-conveniently) over the bus timetable, and that sweet colourful cat that adorns the fifth floor of some historic building with the old fire escapes and ledges 'made for climbing'? How about political graffiti on that house with the anarchists who demand that indigenous land once again actually become indigenous land?
What kind of graffiti is 'dope'? What isn't? Does graffiti require skill? How does one discern the skill involved, when it so radically differs from conventional forms of art? Do we appreciate the inconvenience? The damage to private or public property? The artistic merit? The ability to reach inaccessible places? The ability to remain anonymous, and evade authority?
Who performs graffiti? Why do they do it?
“While it’s popular to think of taggers as youth who’ve gone off the rails and strayed from parental control, I know a tagger here in Wellington who is the child of an anarchist and clearly and articulately explains his tagging within a narrative of generational continuity, where he and his parent share a view that is anti-establishment. So for him, it is about a political stance (or a rejection of politics). But for others, it can purely be about falling in love with letters; the way they slope and curve and dance and lean.”
“What I think is so interesting about tagging and graffiti writers, is that it is a very different type of fame than what is sought by all these aspiring pop stars on idol shows, because it largely remains an anonymous fame. The writer’s marks acquire fame—or infamy. Their artistic nom de plume acquires a reputation, but they could walk down the street and no one would recognise them.”
Is to be a tagger to be a stereotype? Is it done by those with brown faces? Males, and not females? Those with no ambition?
“I’ve recorded stories from pakeha* writers who recount how police treat them leniently, and presume that they must have permission to be painting the wall, but the same police officers harass Maori and Pacific writers even when they do have permission… so the threat that people may feel when they encounter graffiti probably has some kind of relationship—whether people are conscious of it or not—to a set of racialised and class-based anxieties.”
Something I'd like to engage more with, is what it is about graffiti that offends our sensibilities. Why is it that we will tolerate advertising at the bus stop, or on a big ****-off billboard that I can literally see from by house, but not graffiti at the bus stop, or an empty, vandalised billboard?
Graffiti is predicated on the visibility of the art, but not the artist. It provokes a sense of anxiety. Where will it occur? Will I have to pay to 'clean' my property? It provides vulnerability that offends capitalist logic. If private property is meant to be protected and respected, graffiti represents social dysfunction. But need it be interpreted so?
One prominent example referred to in the article, but splashed across my newspaper for weeks was the case of Bruce Emery. In January 2008, this father came across two teenagers tagging his garage. He became enraged, and chased them with a knife. Somehow (he was really fat) he caught them, and a verbal altercation ensued, with the end result being the stabbing of one of the boys, aged 15, in the chest. He left the boy to die, returned home, and did not mention anything to his family.
During the trial, some supported his right to protect his property. Others said the reaction was out of proportion to paint on a door.
In typical New Zealand fashion, he was charged with manslaughter, sentenced to four years and three months, and was released on home detention less than a year into the sentence. He now lives a few blocks away from the teenager's family. Honestly, tell me it does not occur like that anywhere else.
What is it about graffiti that at once annoys and offends us, but also captivates and astounds us?
* 'New Zealander of European descent'.
----------------------------------------
Also, I thought it would be interesting for us to perhaps showcase a few pieces of urban art/vandalism from our own cities, if it even exists in your city. Just Google search your city and 'street art' or something similar. It would be interesting to see the extent to which they differ stylistically, or, probably more likely, are influenced by global trends.
One of my favourite pieces in Wellington is the memorial to Joy Division singer, Ian Curtis.
The Council painted over it, though it had stood for over 20 years. This was followed by a public outcry, and a 'vandal' replaced the memorial:
Here's a cool one:
