I will volunteer this though. Even though I’m done with researching the thesis, I still get a kick out of discovering new things that could be incorporated into it. It's hard to break a habit, you know? To wit, a recent piece by Reason Magazine titled How Graffiti Empowers Big Government.
The takeaway, as depressing as it is, goes something like this: As long as people promote and disseminate graffiti in public spaces, government will find a way to clamp down, in ways that increasingly become more oppressive and less forgiving. As the writer accurately notes, "Few $17 billion industries strive to get smaller."
It's a an occasionally funny read, and even I chuckled when I read "Indeed, perhaps because so much of it is done in the dark, under
difficult conditions, quality control is a particular challenge for
graffiti—it has probably unleashed more bad art on America than
open-mike poetry slams, every incarnation of The Gong
Show, and the NEA combined."
Indeed, a lot of graffiti is crap. I totally understand why one would want to erase it. Would I be fine in a world where there were NO "abatement," as they prefer to call buffing? Eh, probably not. For starters, I've seen pictures from back in the day where entire windows of trains were blotted out. Not cool kiddos.
But then we get this:
"So while graffiti advocates present graffiti as a liberating force that allows individuals and communities to reclaim public space, graffiti has also given local governments a pretext to expand their coercive powers."
I feel like this is one of those straw man arguments. For starters, um, 9/11? Was it kids with spray cans who drove the government to pass the Patriot Act and expand its powers to spy on Americans all the time in every way technologically thinkable? Let's keep this in context here.
And who does this guy think really believes that all graffiti contributes to "reclaiming public space?" Is the kid who did this to my front door reclaiming the public space that is my doorstep?
I suppose you could argue he is, and maybe three or four militant anarchists would agree with you. But honestly, it's not as if it's some big loss if it just goes away. Our door is an unobtrusive, if dingy thing to see. The tag is really no more significant in the grand scheme of things than the random shoe soles or the empty 40 that also happened to be there one morning. I feel quite indifferent to it. Ok, maybe I hope Dinker will get off his ass and do something more creative before he gets caught by the po-po and booked. That's really it though.
Rather than get caught up in the endless "Is it good/Is it bad?" argument, I'd really prefer it if more people paid attention to the ways that artists can look at "blank" surfaces and see so much more. In Halsey and Young’s Our Desires are Ungovernable’: Writing Graffiti in Urban Space, they note:
"The writer who repeatedly tags a wall that is consistently painted ‘clean’ by the authorities knows that there is a better than even chance that a roller brush will eventually be used to bring the wall up to pristine condition. The same writer knows that he has helped turn a porous surface into a non-porous canvas. The latter is one this body can connect with in a more visually affective way."
You may be wondering, what the hell does it mean for a body to connect in a more visually affective way? For an example, check out this:
I found this via Vandalog, and I adore it. It's like taking the old writing of "Wash Me!" on the back of a dusty car and jacking it up a thousand times. The fact that it requires nothing more than a rag and water strikes me as brilliant, and illustrates such a fascinating flipping of power. To the extent that changing the appearance of a space is about exercising power, this is the opposite of the norm: Instead of "Clean surface owned by actor A. is rendered unclean by actor B.," you get well, you've watched the video, so you know.
I wonder, how does this fit within the realm of the story in Reason? Is turning the government's neglect (in this case soot) into art some sort of provocation on the level of my buddy Dinker? Or is it possible that it is, in fact, an example of how art will make itself felt in public, no matter what? I don't know what Alexandre Orion is doing these days, but I hope the folks in Sao Paulo are smart enough to harness his creativity. Cause damn, those skulls are cool!
-PV
Indeed, a lot of graffiti is crap. I totally understand why one would want to erase it. Would I be fine in a world where there were NO "abatement," as they prefer to call buffing? Eh, probably not. For starters, I've seen pictures from back in the day where entire windows of trains were blotted out. Not cool kiddos.
But then we get this:
"So while graffiti advocates present graffiti as a liberating force that allows individuals and communities to reclaim public space, graffiti has also given local governments a pretext to expand their coercive powers."
I feel like this is one of those straw man arguments. For starters, um, 9/11? Was it kids with spray cans who drove the government to pass the Patriot Act and expand its powers to spy on Americans all the time in every way technologically thinkable? Let's keep this in context here.
And who does this guy think really believes that all graffiti contributes to "reclaiming public space?" Is the kid who did this to my front door reclaiming the public space that is my doorstep?
I suppose you could argue he is, and maybe three or four militant anarchists would agree with you. But honestly, it's not as if it's some big loss if it just goes away. Our door is an unobtrusive, if dingy thing to see. The tag is really no more significant in the grand scheme of things than the random shoe soles or the empty 40 that also happened to be there one morning. I feel quite indifferent to it. Ok, maybe I hope Dinker will get off his ass and do something more creative before he gets caught by the po-po and booked. That's really it though.
Rather than get caught up in the endless "Is it good/Is it bad?" argument, I'd really prefer it if more people paid attention to the ways that artists can look at "blank" surfaces and see so much more. In Halsey and Young’s Our Desires are Ungovernable’: Writing Graffiti in Urban Space, they note:
"The writer who repeatedly tags a wall that is consistently painted ‘clean’ by the authorities knows that there is a better than even chance that a roller brush will eventually be used to bring the wall up to pristine condition. The same writer knows that he has helped turn a porous surface into a non-porous canvas. The latter is one this body can connect with in a more visually affective way."
You may be wondering, what the hell does it mean for a body to connect in a more visually affective way? For an example, check out this:
I found this via Vandalog, and I adore it. It's like taking the old writing of "Wash Me!" on the back of a dusty car and jacking it up a thousand times. The fact that it requires nothing more than a rag and water strikes me as brilliant, and illustrates such a fascinating flipping of power. To the extent that changing the appearance of a space is about exercising power, this is the opposite of the norm: Instead of "Clean surface owned by actor A. is rendered unclean by actor B.," you get well, you've watched the video, so you know.
I wonder, how does this fit within the realm of the story in Reason? Is turning the government's neglect (in this case soot) into art some sort of provocation on the level of my buddy Dinker? Or is it possible that it is, in fact, an example of how art will make itself felt in public, no matter what? I don't know what Alexandre Orion is doing these days, but I hope the folks in Sao Paulo are smart enough to harness his creativity. Cause damn, those skulls are cool!
-PV
No comments:
Post a Comment