Humankind writing on walls is no new convention, so why now is it considered a deformation of urban property or an eye soar on the seemingly unblemished fabric of society? Street graffiti is very much a liminal art, stuck between public defacement and a highly celebrated art form of modern times. Blossoming in the early eighties as an underground movement, graffiti represents the visual expressions of an anticonformist culture and the physical demarcations of one’s presence within society. In many cases, graffiti represents an ephemeral art form because many are taken down as quickly as they were put up. Unfortunate but true because defacement of public property is illegal. But in many areas of the city, graffiti remains untouched and left to be admired. Some could perceive graffiti as boundary markers, showcased in many areas that are considered a little rough around the edges. Additionally, proving to be rather popular these days are examples of graffiti that are essentially socio-politically charged images of corporate logos that have been manipulated in a negative way. Essentially, these examples of graffiti represent a rebellion on behalf of the artist against the dominant society. Furthermore, graffiti artists substitute their canvas with city walls and transform public spaces into works of art. So why is graffiti struggling to be legitimated as an art form?
Focusing on graffiti exhibited in greater Vancouver, I came across an incredible piece while walking around down near Granville Island tucked underneath the Granville street bridge. Massive in size, the piece is the graffiti artists’ name transformed into a map of Vancouver. In an article by Pat Rafferty titled “Discourse on Difference: Street Art/Graffiti Youth”, he termed this style of graffiti as wild style, which “evolved out of the practice of tagging. The label, ‘tag’ refers to a group of highly stylized letters in a format that makes the end result appear much like a commercial logo when indeed it is publicizing the assumed name of the graffitist” (2008:5). Unable to make out what his name was because it was so highly stylized, Cyprus, Grouse and Seymore mountains form the top of the letters of the graffitists’ name. Below is a compacted image of downtown Vancouver, and to the left, the Lions Gate and Burrard bridges are shown. The bottom right side of the name forms a map with specific locations represented such as Emily Carr, possibly a mechanics shop and a local bar. What is interesting about this section of the wild style tag is that these locations are marked the letter “X” in red, possibly because these locations are of some importance to the graffitist. On the left side of the image is a section marked “shout outs” with some names of the graffitists’ friends or possibly people that helped the graffitist with the execution of the image. What I found so interesting about this particular graffiti example is the overt claims to identity and authorship on behalf of the graffitist. The piece could essentially be read as a billboard which displayed the graffitists’ name and what could be assumed as his/her favorite local hangouts, as well as displaying his/her immense pride and love for the city of Vancouver. The graffitist has attempted no modes of anonymity but has fabricated a rather large and elaborate display of his/her identity. The graffitist transformed this wall underneath the Granville street bridge into, essentially, a billboard dedicated solely to them. This can be interpreted as follows, the graffitist is physically demarcating their place within society utilizing a medium of expression most familiar to them, through the medium of spray-paint. Additionally, graffiti could be viewed, in some sense, as art without a voice because the viewer may never be able to put a face to the name, so to some extent even though the piece is such an overt display of the graffitists’ name it does to some extent remain anonymous, or without a face.
Returning to the question of graffiti as a legitimate art form, Rafferty states that “the acceptance of the artist’s work as art lies not only in the work but in the ability of others to accept work marginalized by the preferred aesthetic” (2008:4). It is hard to image that graffiti will ever be considered the preferred aesthetic, but you cannot deny that most examples of greater Vancouver graffiti is very aesthetically pleasing. It is becoming more and more accepted but still remains negatively viewed because it is the defacement of public property. Furthermore, Rafferty states that “in parodying the taken-for-granted rites of representation, the artists are reworking the conditions for acceptance and rejection” (2008:7). For graffiti, the only means of rejection is the city having the image removed, but if the image remains, the viewer has no choice by to accept the piece. Thusly, in considering graffiti as a legitimate art form, it could be perceived as public art because graffiti, invading the public spheres of society, visually demarcating the urban fabric of Vancouver, is meant to be enjoyed by the public.
Reference:
Rafferty, Pat
2008 Discourse on Difference: Street Art/Graffiti Youth. Visual Anthropology Review 7
(2): 1-7.
No comments:
Post a Comment