Urban Abuse or Art with a Capital "A"?

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.

Jai-Ho-My God It's the Pussycat Dolls Again...

The massively successful 2008 movie, Slumdog Millionaire, directed by Danny Boyle, concludes with an enchanting dance sequence led by the two main characters of the movie, Latika and Jamal. Finally united in the train station, the two appear to shimmy all over the train station exhibiting some of the finest dance moves India has to offer. The dancers, clearly showcasing a dance style that draws on a traditional forms of Indian dance, bounce along to a catchy beat that inevitably gets stuck in the viewer’s heads for days on end. The song “Jai-Ho” translated into English as “Be Victorious” appears to take on a fame of its own and becomes the catalyst for a slew of several laughable you-tube renditions. The leader of the pack and the focus of this blog entry is the ever so sensual rendition by America’s sweethearts, the Pussycat Dolls. I will attempt to view the Pussycat Dolls video objectively in order to apply some theoretical approaches put forth by Walter Benjamin in his article “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”. A reoccurring term in his article, “aura”, is described by Benjamin as “…that which withers away in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art” (2009:3). To Benjamin, a work of art so heavily mechanically reproduced and in this case, so heavily altered from the original, contained no sliver of “aura” left. Furthermore, with this detachment from the “aura”, comes a lack of authenticity and in the case of the video from the Pussycat Dolls, an exploitation of sexuality in order to conform to the ideals of popular American culture. Furthermore, Benjamin states that “the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition” (2009:3) and that these processes undeniably lead to a “tremendous shattering of tradition” (2009:3). The only tiny fragment of tradition I am referring to in conjunction with the debaucherous Pussycat Dolls video is the dancing techniques used which clearly draw from traditional conventions. Furthermore, this particular “Jai-Ho” video is nothing but aesthetically pleasing and is ultimately an object that is consumed by the viewer, considering it has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times.

            I believe Walter Benjamin says it best when he states in his article that mechanical reproductions or films are “the liquidation of the traditional value of the cultural heritage” (2009:3). In trying to extract some sliver of cultural significance from the Pussycat Dolls video, the viewer is left inevitably grasping at straws because there is no cultural significance in the video and even if there was, it is unfortunately suffocating under a heavy blanket of sexuality. It is obvious upon first viewing the video that it is catering to an audience, a teenage audience. Additionally, within the first thirty seconds of the video, the appearance of a deliberate Nokia cell phone product placement firmly cements this statement. I do not remember a scantily-clad blonde female filming the dance on a Nokia Smartphone? Benjamin said it best; the traditional value of the original has been liquefied in the mechanical reproduction because it must be manipulated in order to satisfy the taste of the culture which is consuming the object. You-tube videos allow the viewer unlimited accessibility into an alternate reality, something that appears seemingly easier to endure than real life. The videos are powerful agents that allow the viewer to escape reality for a matter of minutes.

            Lastly, in terms of the social significance of the video, it is pure entertainment and in the words of Benjamin, the “intimate fusion of visual and emotional enjoyment” (2009:8). This video does nothing more but provide a catchy beat and cater to the sensory perceptions of the confused teenage. Furthermore, Benjamin states that “such fusion is of great social significance” (2009:8) because it provides the viewer with an escape. Ultimately, videos like “Jai-Ho” by the Pussycat Dolls represent a departure from the authentic, original modes of representation and I believe if Walter Benjamin were able to view the video now, he too would regard it as rubbish and devoid of any fragment of “aura”.

 

References:

Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. New York, NY:

            Classica America, 2009.

The Case of the Ravaging Pathogen

Cholera is exactly the kind of disease you worry about after a catastrophic natural disaster and currently the Republic of Haiti is facing its first outbreak of cholera in a hundred years. The earthquake hit on 12 January, 2010 killing 316,000 people and leaving one million homeless 1. In a statement given to the CBC News a year after the devastating event, Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive believes “about 800,000 of them still live in make shift tent cities” 2. Tent cities in Haiti, mixed with poor living conditions and malnutrition become a breeding ground for the epidemic. A statement given by the AFP regarding the epidemic claimed that “the death toll from Haiti’s cholera epidemic is 4,030 and the Haitian Ministry said Thursday the number of cholera cases totaled 209,034 as of 24 January, 2011”3. These numbers are subjected to daily fluctuations, increasing and decreasing slightly with each story as they attempt to provide the masses with the most up-to-date information regarding this sensitive matter. Furthermore, one thing becomes readily apparently to the informed media reader—that the major media outlets do a fantastic job at berating the masses with information centered on devastation. Several of the major media outlets, BBC News, CBS News and the NY Times to a name a few, have all address the rather crucial issue of origin. What has shockingly been declared in all articles is that a UN contingent from Nepal is accountable. The CBS News article reports that “the back of the base smelled like a toilet had exploded. Reeking, dark liquid flowed out of a broken pipe, toward the river…" 4. That statement from the CBS News article firmly lays the blame solely on the careless sanitation practices of the 454 Nepalese UN peacekeepers stationed on the Artibonite River.

 But I am going to turn my attention to the article published by the NY Times on 17 November, 2010, roughly a month after the epidemic first reared its ugly head. The title reads “Officials in Haiti Defend Focus on Cholera Outbreak, Not Its Origins”. Furthermore, the author, Randal C. Archibold declares that “medical authorizes in Haiti defend their decision Tuesday not to focus on finding the origins of a cholera outbreak that has killed more than 1,000 people…” 5. Something just does not sit right with me about that statement, where is the justice for the Haitians that remain suffering from the disease, or the people that have lost members of their family? Is it possible that this rather crucial issue is being overlooked by the NY Times article because it is the United Nations that is to blame. I believe that it would be a rather substantial blow to the credibility of the powerhouse of an organization that includes such agencies as WFO, WFP and UNICEF, and maybe the NY Times does not wish to be responsible for delivering that blow, so instead Archibold decides to overlook the truth in his article. Reading further on in the article, Archibold then proclaims that “a spokesman for the United Nations force said the protestors were using the escalating cholera epidemic as an excuse to push the troops out and destabilize the country before the November 28 presidential elections” 6. Therefore, he now shifts the negative focus onto the people of Haiti claiming that the Haitians were using the cholera epidemic as a means to manipulate the presidential election. Obviously, the United Nations is a massive organization with huge influence and it’s possible that  Archibold and the NY Times did not wish to be a media outlet that jeopardizes the credibility of the United Nations. Furthermore, as horrible as it is to believe, suffering and devastation appear to be the more popular themes in media as opposed to success and progress in times of devastation. A possible theory to this statement is that the avid media reader, to some extent, sees a part of themselves reflected in the suffering of people and this undeniably invokes a sense of sympathy and with that sense of sympathy comes an urge to help. Furthermore, with this invocation of sympathy people are more compelled to donate money. So it is possible if the masses become more informed that the UN is to blame for the cholera epidemic, people will become less and less inclined to support the organization and donate money and maybe the NY Times article overlook the rather crucial issue to keep this from happening.