It seems a lot of the readings touched on how graffiti was received in medieval times. In Marianne Ritsema van Eck’s essay, she discusses whether graffiti was an accepted practice, and she focuses on the sacro monte of Varallo. Here creating graffiti was a common practice for pilgrims, however an anti-graffiti campaign is run by Counter-Reformation bishop Carlo Bascape through a series of new rules. I was especially drawn to the comparison the author draws between the graffiti on the walls and Bascape’s signs prohibiting graffiti, for they are both forms of text. She writes “the institutional voice against graffiti was advertised in writing at the same location where it was supposed to prevent illicit writing, thus competing for predominance in that same space (61).” It’s interesting how one form of text can be considered illicit while another is deemed okay.
The comparisons Mia Gaia Trentin drew between Latin and Greek graffiti were also really interesting; Latin graffiti tended to underline the visit to a holy building while Greek graffiti was more closely tied to the devotional religious aspects of the journey. I liked how Trentin gave us context on the people creating these graffiti, because it explained why there is a distinct difference between the Greek and Latin graffiti. While graffiti can tell us about the cultures of different people, we can also learn a lot about the individuals during a certain time period and the way they go about certain processes. For example, in Doris Jones-Baker’s essay, she points out the importance of graffiti in (for example) the interior design of England’s medieval churches. She shows us that “graffiti can sometimes provide the historian with the names, dates, and other information about the craftsmen who built the medieval churches (13).” Through these etchings and sketches of the past, we can learn about the specific people involved in the making of buildings that are still up today.