I have never thought about graffiti as a concept that transcends time, culture and space. For me, it has always been a somewhat modern action and form of expression. It has become so prevalent in our urban environment, and often is considered to “deface” walls and public spaces. Which is why it’s so easy for us to view ancient graffiti as something something similar. I really liked that all of these articles attempted to define graffiti what graffiti was/is in the beginning, and then went on to challenge common stereotypes of modern graffiti that we implicitly placed on ancient graffiti. As Baird and Taylor mention “it might be easy to view ancient graffiti as an illicit urban phenomenon which defaces property” (3). Baird and Taylor argue that viewing graffiti as acts of defacement leads to more misconceptions than revelations, as it will implicitly “demonize” graffiti. It takes away from what the artist/maker’s original intention might have been, which could have simply been to mark ownership over a pot or stall in a marketplace. Therefore, we cannot just assume that ancient graffiti was unauthorized or illicit. Additionally, Frood mentions that ancient graffiti was not made just by lower classes, but also by soldiers and even priests.
What I really took away from all of these articles, is how fluid and vague the definition of graffiti is. While in its simplest form, graffiti can be defined as markings that are scratched onto a surface/building, that are not technically supposed to be there in the first place. However, the definition really depends on the culture and context of the markings, which is why it is hard to have “graffiti” as a distinct category. As Baird and Taylor argue, “ancient graffiti are not necessarily defined only by their content or subject, nor by the surface onto which they are made, nor by the techniques with which they are produced” (5). As graffiti encompasses such a broad definition and inclusion of markings, it has largely led to the exclusion of graffiti from being viewed as historical “evidence” or even art.
As we mentioned on the first day of our class, graffiti is naturally intended to have some sort of audience. It is created for someone to view and interact with. It can be for everyone as there is no formal training, skill, or literacy required to “read” it. However, because it is so informal and is largely considered to image based, it leads to the “marginalization of graffiti as a form of evidence” (Baird, Taylor 8). Historians are more likely to accept something as evidence if it contains elements of written or verbal language. This is problematic to me because graffiti can be done by anyone for any reason. It is the most universal and inclusive form of communication. Ancient graffiti gives us a very personal look into individual people’s daily lives, and is not just representative of the elite and those who have gotten the chance to shape and write their own history. Because graffiti is not “supposed” to be there, we immediately connect ancient graffiti to our modern misconceptions and stereotypes of graffiti and disregard it as important historical evidence.