Of course most of the arguments against graffiti have merit, especially regarding senseless "markings" (tagging) on private and public property. Hardly more than relieving yourself against a pole or a wall.
Artists who compose real graffiti - graffiti that actually have something to say - are doing so because they need to express their view or communicate a message they believe would otherwise not be heard. It is therefore a line of communication. If graffiti is regarded as illegal, and is regulated, shouldn't we also regulate the huge advertising boards and their immense visual impact, even visual pollution? I know the answer - they pay to be there.
Graffiti art meets you on the street where you live and move. Depending on its content it is designed to elicit shock, anger, amusement or even introspection. It is by nature illicit and although its styles and techniques can be exported to the gallery, civic murals and even the artist's canvas, its charm remains the guilt by association.
Graffiti is a protest against everything the ad agency (and their advertising boards), stands for; the commodification of public space, standardisation of the built environment and permission based, central control of communication in the form of visual display, which dystopians and town planners agree is the most powerful way to communicate with large groups of people who are busy doing something else - the definition of a modern city.
The political nature of the act itself and the accusation implicit in the act, influence the aesthetic of the resulting image, so that it is often purely ornamental.
The name originates from an Italian term, graffito, which means little writing or little scratching. The term was used to describe the graffiti art that emerged during the Pop Art era in American cities - interestingly enough together with the new consumerism, accompanied advertising and of course billboards of that era.
Graffiti constitutes a major strand of street art, and although graffiti writers as a rule did not really write for the public as an audience (I. Scheepers) , there exists a major strand of modern graffiti artists who attempts to communicate with its local community about issues of concern using a wide range of techniques and different levels of meaning.
Graffiti has always angered, annoyed and even entertained me. I get both sides of the coin - the pros and the cons. I just find it invasive and arrogant - whatever the message en wherever the posting. Public property is part of the collective - it is shared and therefore cannot be defaced by ANYONE without the persmission of the collective. Even if that someone is trying to say something to the collective.
ReplyDeleteAd companies pay big money for bill boards and in the end the funds in some way or the other (exept in extreme cases of corruption) gets back to the collective.
I find it ironic that South Africa had relatively little graffiti in the bad days of apartheid when there was really something to be said for communication via graffiti.(Fear factor)?
As a young tourist from South Africa touring Europe in the early 80s, I was shocked to see the proliferation of graffiti damaging the beautiful and often historically significant buildings and monuments in all the major cities.
I felt honoured and privileged to see these places, while it seemed to me that the people who lived surrounded by all these wonderful historical sites have an "ersatz" attitude to their history and environment.
That is the face of graffiti that I also cannot make peace with, although I understand on some level how the disenfranchised youth can "piss" on what the establishment values. That is life.
ReplyDeleteI think the mom part in me wants to order and clean up, while the artist/psychologist part wants to understand. Therefore the white wall and neat graffiti?
When you study the work of Banksy, you will see that it goes far beyond mere vandalism. He also rejects the conventional and institutions (eg his works featuring the Queen, police and art galleries),but it is serious social comment and is therefore regarded as art.