At the beginning of the seminar we reviewed deconstruction, something that I didn’t quite understand until discussing in. Deconstruction is like the mathematical conundrum that states that one can never reach a destination because each time you move from point A to B you must first go half the distance, then half the distance left, then half that distance left, and so on, showing you will never reach point B because you would always be halfway away. I find deconstruction to be intriguing because it can definitely stimulate new lines of questioning.
This seminar highlighted some of the important aspects to keep in mind when considering ancient graffiti; it’s performative, it’s connected to space, and it’s a dialogue. Ancient graffiti was performative because it was in your face, it turned spectators into spectacles, it was from a culture where people read out loud, and it was sometimes of a competitive nature. Graffiti made in temples should especially be understood as an act because it was the act of writing that made it a ritual, similar to a signature in modern times. Ancient graffiti is also connected to space; for example in the street intersections of Pompeii apotropaic graffiti could been seen. In Egyptian temples the location of graffiti reflects the daily happenings of temple personnel and shows how the temples have changed over time. The satirical graffiti diminishing the ruler in the Ruler and Protector motifs must’ve been made by elite people of the Mayan society, understood because of its location in an elite temple complex. Lastly, graffiti was a dialogue. This can be seen in the “graffiti spaces” in the Egyptian temples where graffiti stimulated making more graffiti and this accumulation turned it into a sacred space. Graffiti often asks for the “beholder’s share” and therefore doesn’t exist without an audience.