The Great Graffiti Debate
Street Art - the message is in the medium
Urban
art – or mindless vandalism? The graffiti debate has raged for many years, and
remains an area of polarised opinion. One widely held view is that graffiti
represents an increasing blight on society perpetrated by miscreants and
delinquents with no respect for private property, or indeed for the community
they inhabit. But is it really that easy to pigeon hole in such a negative way
what others view as a viable form of self expression and an undeniable
manifestation of an individuals right to free speech? Could it be argued that
emotive expressions like “malicious damage”, “inner city quality of life crime”
and “defaced property” are an oversimplification of a far more complex and much
misunderstood art form?
A broad definition of graffiti is an inscription or picture painted onto walls
in public places, which will be visible to the public. Urban public spaces (and
the proliferation of the word “public” is intentional) are often dominated by
big money advertising hoardings promoting any multi national with a large enough
marketing budget. It could be argued that our landscape is shaped around
commercial values and profit generation for private companies. So why is
graffiti any different to the “in your face” advertising boards which push
useless luxury items on the already overburdened consumer? How can any member of
the public influence the aesthetics of their own environment? Graffiti and
street art provide this opportunity for what can be a marginalized section of
society to have their voices heard through the creation of colourful and vibrant
artwork. At its best, it can be considered to be stunning free art for the
common man, witty and original social commentary available to anyone with
something to say.
Street art by its very nature flies in the face of the capitalist values our
society holds dear. By using private property as a public canvas, the artist is
challenging those values and those people in positions of power and ownership
are consequently the most threatened by urban graffiti.
The positive aspects of graffiti are that it empowers an often alienated and
disenfranchised youth to be recognised and to be creative in contrast to the
negative aspects of their environment, such as drugs, violence and social
deprivation. As street art is so closely linked to hip-hop culture, which
includes very positive elements, such as dance and DJ work, surely we should be
supporting young people in pursuing what can become vivacious and imaginative
lifestyles? To criminalize any one aspect of this culture is likely to have the
effect of merely driving it underground. We should be embracing an activity
which captures the imagination of young people, and encouraging them to develop
what can be a rich and rewarding art form.
I’ll end with the obvious question – would I want it on my house? No. And I
wouldn’t take too kindly to an advertising board either.
... but is it Art?
The best definition of a weed that I have come across is that
it is anything that is growing where it isn’t wanted and I think that a similar
definition could be applied to graffiti, which could be described as something
that is drawn or painted where nobody but the artist wants it. Graffiti has been
around for a long time and some would even say that the cave paintings done in
iron-age times, and before, might fit into this category.
In times long past man has always felt the need to leave his mark where he has
been, or to announce his love to the world, or to make a political statement of
some kind but I am not talking about that kind of graffiti. I am talking about
the kind of graffiti that has surfaced in the past couple of decades due to the
invention of the felt-tip pen or the spray can.
The most famous of the early exponents that started the current epidemic in the
late sixties was a young New York foot messenger called Demetrius. His “tag” was
TAKI 183 which was made up from a shortened “Dematraki”, an alternative of his
name, and 183, which was his address in Washington Heights. As he went about his
work as a messenger, he left his mark or “tag” on the streets that he walked and
on the subway trains that he travelled on.
A curious reporter from the New York Times tracked him down and eventually ran
an article about him. This in turn spread his fame and resulted in hundreds of
young people following his example. Thus was the modern epidemic spawned. As if
it wasn’t already enough of a problem, the practice of “tagging” (leaving a
stylised version of your name or initials on a wall) was lionised in a film
called “Turk 152” where a young man leaving this tag all over the place was
turned into a hero fighting an unsympathetic local authority.
Tagging spawned “dubbing”, which was a much more colourful, stylised way of
writing words, and both forms of the practice were adopted by New York gangs to
mark their territory in much the same way that dogs leave their scent on
lampposts. Nowadays, part of the culture of leaving tags is that those that do
it gain street-cred for doing in places that they shouldn’t and even more
street-cred for doing it places that are dangerous or difficult to get to. When
I did a similar article for another newsletter some time ago, I included a
picture of a tag that had been left on the side of a 20-storey block of flats –
at the top - by someone who had climbed to the roof and then risked life and
limb by hanging over the side to use a spray can.
There is a complete sub-culture associated with graffiti. Some would call it
“graffiti art” because some of the exponents are indeed very artistic in what
they do. The most famous graffiti artist in this country is “Banksie” who
clearly is a genius in the way that he creates a work of art out of ordinary
buildings that challenge our very perception of what was there in the first
place. But, even he has done it where it wasn’t wanted and that is the very
point.
Graffiti art, to go back to the analogy with weeds, is by its very nature done
on someone else’s property and done without their consent. If they give their
consent, it’s a mural not graffiti. The law looks upon such non-consential work
as criminal damage and it is this crime that is costing the taxpayer millions of
pounds to clean up.
So is it right, then, that Kent County Council, through its youth service, is
running “graffiti workshops” that teach young people how to get the most out of
a spray-can? They would argue that graffiti arts is a different form that fits
into the vast range of artistic techniques. I would argue that they are,
instead, classes in criminality. Even one of the instructors that I spoke to
recently admitted that, “I used to spray on walls but I don’t anymore”. A
suitable role model? I’ll leave it to you.
Terry Begent
Article from Go Folkestone Newsletter March 2008
