“Graffiti in its modern sense is an effect of categorization.” (Fleming) Through the study of graffiti we are really reading into the study of the early modern city.
In early modern times, our perception of graffiti is influenced by the fact that from a legal perspective, the practice of graffiti is considered destruction of property rather than writing. We are then forced to think through a veil of criminal act in order to read the implications of these markings. In thinking about this in the context of my research I am wondering if it changes if the markings are either forms/ images or writing. Are people more likely to be mad about a message on a wall or an image? And then by consequence, what has a more powerful message?
Something Gordon mentioned, that I found very interesting was the idea that we all too often fall into the trap of trying to reconstruct the artist through their work, rather than taking it at face value. We try to imagine the person behind the writing or the markings. Is it that we can’t imagine the work existing without a creator? Anonymity is something I have yet to consider in the context of graffiti. There is no pressure to show the work attached to an artist. Some graffiti artists tag their works with special symbols or initials, but a lot of work exists by itself. We keep talking about the idea of authorship and claiming authorship, but what happens when the author wants to remain unknown? How can we contextualize this in an area where individuality is limited?
“In the absence of an author, then, anxieties over unrest supply the image of popular revolt to fill the void.” (Gordon, Page 389) Without an author, the image becomes open, it becomes a message of the space. It both is more elusive, and more pervasive.