Overall, I found the film Basquiat (1996) by Julian Schnabel to be very interesting and enlightening. I had little knowledge regarding Basquiat before the film, so I learned a lot about his life and relationship with other artists that I previously did not know. One of the scenes that really captured my attention was toward the end of the film where Basquiat tried to add his tag to some graffiti to make it worth more, and the graffiti artists rejected him, showing that he is no longer a part of that subculture. I think one of the most important questions to ask is if Basquiat’s art can still be considered graffiti. There was a clear distinction made between his street graffiti and “fine art” graffiti; they each had different styles and purposes. This leads me to wonder if his graffiti in the galleries can be considered graffiti because they were evidently made differently and with a different intention than his street graffiti. I thought the film was intriguing and well done, but sad at the end.
Graffiti and the Art World
This week’s reading “From the Street to the Gallery: A Critical Analysis of the Inseparable Nature of Graffiti and Context” by Alexandra K. Duncan criticized the display of graffiti in galleries because the white walls of a gallery cannot provide the same context as graffiti in the street. Some of the key points are that on the street, graffiti is illicit, unexpected, approachable, and accessible to all, but in a gallery, graffiti is commissioned, expected, closed off from contact, and only viewed by the upper-class society that visits museum. There is also a key difference between the static graffiti in a gallery and the tags on a train or subway car that rides throughout the city, and graffiti on canvas versus graffiti on rough, imperfect wall. Lastly, graffiti on the street is participating in a discourse with the surrounding graffiti, and this is not possible in a gallery.
Contemporary Graffiti in the World
These articles looked at graffiti in a global context and discussed themes regarding race, ethnicity, class, and gender. In the article “We’ve got better things to do than worry about whitefella politics” by Jordan Ralph and Claire Smith, I found it interesting that the key points of the graffiti research were made by looking at where graffiti was not present. This reinstates the importance of location, because the fact that graffiti was not present on the NTER signs showed that the aboriginal people did not concern themselves with the government policy. Another key point made by the article is in the difference in point of view to show a difference in perspective regarding community; the aboriginal graffiti was made in the first-person plural, but outside graffiti was in first-person singular.
In “Reading Graffiti in the Caribbean Context” by Curwen Best, we saw some of the first instances of gender in graffiti, where the women outwit the men’s sexist graffiti and have large amounts of discourse. I was also intrigued by how American graffiti impacted the Barbados graffiti in such a way that graffiti in Barbados had an opposite progression then graffiti in New York. In Barbados, graffiti began as an act of resistance, because they had seen it have that affect in America, and then developed communities of taggers and the graffiti subculture.
One big takeaway from John Lennon’s article “Writing with a Global Accent: Cairo and the Roots/Routes of Conflict Graffiti” was how English was used in communities that didn’t speak English because the resistance graffiti was purposefully being made for a global audience, accessed through social media and the internet.
The story told about graffiti in the article “A Wall in Mexico City’s Historic Center: Calle Regina 56” by Pamela Scheinman was very thought-provoking and prompted discussion of the positive outcomes possible from graffiti and street art. I thought it interesting how disliked murals were bombed regularly and not repaired, while popular murals that were defaced were very quickly restored. One question that this article prompted was whether we can consider this graffiti since it is commissioned and sanctioned.
Contemporary Graffiti
These articles and documentary showed the graffiti subculture in New York City in the 1970s (MacDonald, Gopinath, Style Wars), how this subculture changed over the next decades (Mitman), what we can learn about society by studying contemporary graffiti (Nadrea, Stocker), and what we can learn about artists through the study of graffiti (Phillips).
I learned that there is a lot more to graffiti than I previously understood. I never knew that the goal of tagging was going “All-City” and earning respect in the graffiti community through the anonymous tag you create, which becomes your alter ego (Macdonald). This virtual reality is interesting because it shows that the desire to create an alternate identity was not something new with the internet. I also found the causes and effects of government action against graffiti were very interesting. The cause for action was the public unhappiness toward the run-down subway system, which caused the feelings of resentment to be generalized onto the graffiti in the subways. Eventually graffiti came to represent something out of government control, which meant that locations with graffiti were unsafe. The effect of government action was that graffiti moved out of the subway onto the streets, and the anti-government motivations that were previously incorrectly assumed about graffiti artists, became true (Mitman).
I also found the transition to wildstyle intriguing because I assumed that wildstyle graffiti was legible to other graffiti artists and that I just couldn’t read it because I didn’t have any background information. Instead, wildstyle is intended to be illegible and gains its meaning through the style and form of the letters (Gopinath).
Early Modern Graffiti
These articles on early modern graffiti continue to show the importance of studying graffiti to give first hand local history (Giles), explain how graffiti can be perceived as a ritual (Plesch), and continue the debate on how to define graffiti (Fleming, Gordon, Sarti).
Plesch makes a perfect comparison between the graffiti in a chapel at Arborio to ritualization. This is done by comparing both the surface of graffiti and the location of the church on the edge of Arborio to liminal spaces, and because the graffiti was written with a constant syntax. This ritual was shown to be a cathartic way of forgetting the past and also making the future predictable. This article prompted me to question if the chapel was built and the frescoes were painted in order to carry out this ritual, or if the ritual was unintended during the chapel’s construction and decoration.
The debate on the context of graffiti continues in these articles; Fleming continues to show how graffiti was accepted and not thought as different from any other form of writing, Gordon shows how the anonymity of graffiti led to an aggressive interpretation, leading to its illicit nature, and Sarti attempted to use binary oppositions to define graffiti relative to formal inscriptions, and proved that a straightforward comparison cannot be made.
Medieval Graffiti
In these articles, ancient graffiti isn’t always shown as something that wasn’t illicit, disapproved, or only made by the lower class. Marianne Ritsema van Eck sites many example of graffiti being both approved and unapproved. In the article by O’Donnell, different perspective towards graffiti are shown over history that describe graffiti both as acceptable and unacceptable. According to Fabri, graffiti is a disturbance for later pilgrims, an act of violence and disrespect. This contradicts many of the previous article’s perceptions regarding ancient graffiti, reasserting that a discussion of the social context of graffiti must always be discussed.
Medieval graffiti was often found in the context of churches. Pilgrimages that passed through churches resulted in pilgrims leaving graffiti to mark that they had completed that part of the pilgrimage. I also found it interesting that O’Donnell sites many situations in which English men would leave graffiti after recognizing other English graffiti, such an act that shows how graffiti served to unite subgroups of people.
Mia Gala and Graves and Rollason both write articles using graffiti as a way to gain information on other topics. Mia Gala discusses the relationships between Latins and Greeks in Cyprus through graffiti while Graves and Rollason determine the history and function of a prior’s chapel in Durham through the graffiti present. This relates to the theme of using graffiti as a framework for approaching different fields of research.
Ancient Graffiti Post Seminar
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.
Ancient Graffiti
I enjoyed these articles on ancient graffiti because each synthesized their respective ancient worlds in which graffiti is present through the analysis of the graffiti itself. By asking where and why graffiti was made, the authors give insights into each of the historical worlds of their respective graffiti. The articles considered graffiti made by all different people and found in all different places, but many similarities arose between the articles. Common themes in ancient graffiti include names, advertisements, obscenities, depictions of gods, and messages directed at specific people.
But before any of the authors were able to discuss graffiti, they first attempted to define graffiti and concluded that the definition is vague. Rather, the authors often explained what graffiti is by showing what it isn’t by disproving stereotypes. Frood explained that graffiti is not restricted to the lower class, but was made by all peoples, including priests (285). Baird and Taylor explained that we can’t assume ancient graffiti was illicit, or unauthorized (3). Kellum gave examples of graffiti of interior and exterior, showing graffiti isn’t always a public declaration (285). To give a loose definition, graffiti is a secondary image (not part of the primary decoration of a building) found in a place where it is unintended.
I was particularly intrigued by Frood’s study of temple graffiti to help create a timeline of how the temple has changed over time. Frood wrote that graffiti spaces “make it possible to plot long, probably punctuated, processes of addition, formalizing, and re-formalizing of sacred spaces” (Frood 297). This analysis of architecture using graffiti reaffirms the values of studying graffiti to bring new information to other fields.
Spectacle of the Streetby Barbra Kellum provided some of my favorite examples of ancient graffiti, specifically the discourse between Successus and Severus (287). This public conversation was humorous and a perfect example of how graffiti is a discourse between creator and viewer, reaffirming the idea that viewing graffiti was active, not passive. Frood surprised me by showing that the graffiti of Pompeii was very diverse, including everything from advertisements for restaurants or garments, to showing support for elections or gladiators, to simple jokes or game boards inscribed into the street itself. Kellum’s statement that “The serious and the humorous, the commercial and the sacred, the military and the amatory: all shared the same representational space and frequently intermingled” (290) shows how graffiti was a place of equality where any person could liken themselves to a god or hero. Ancient graffiti as an undiscriminating outlet for any voice relates to modern graffiti and how it stands for activism and a platform for all people.
Look! Again chapters 4-6
Chapters four through six of Look! Again by D’Alleva presented theories that were at times perplexing but always thought provoking. Each of the theories questioned either the interplay of works of art with context or the viewer. Psychoanalysis, The Psychology of Art, Reader Response Theory, the Aesthetics of Reception, and Hermeneutics all analyze how a viewer interprets a piece of art, considering the context of the viewing, and pre-understandings of the viewer. Psychoanalysis also attempts to theorize how an artist made a piece of art and makes claims stating that the artist is not in control of the piece but is just releasing unconscious energy through imagery. Hermeneutics argued that the interpretation of art also changes depending on the time and place of interpretation and that the act of interpretation is a circle, where one enters in the middle due to preconceptions.
Reader-response theory was one theory that especially captured my attention because I finally began to understand why my older sister is a comparative literature major. I’ve never been fond of analyzing text, and so I couldn’t appreciate what she was doing as a comparative lit major, nor why it intrigued her. Reader response theory states that a text or work of art does not have pre-given meaning, meaning happens through reading or viewing. By learning about reader-response theory and how it can be applied to artwork, I learned that what I find so interesting in art history is not so different from what she finds appealing in comparative literature. Reader-response theory also made me question if or how often theory is used in her discipline.
Look Again! Chapters 1-3
Having never studied art history while deliberately using theory, I found the expanse of theories applicable to art history’s study surprising and enlightening. D’Alleva begins by showing that theory is difficult to define and always changing, therefore eliminating my preconceptions that theory is a simple idea and preparing me to be more receptive to the theories in the chapters to follow.
After reading and learning about each of the theories, I concluded that every theory has its advantages, but that each is incomplete and can only be best applied to art when used concurrently with other theories. For example, I found formalism to be too inadequate of an approach to art, but that it is valuable because it helps to narrow the mind of the researcher and prevents the study of artists from being mistaken for the study of art. Formalism combined with iconography and the history of ideas would allow for a more well-rounded approach to a work of art by taking into account the formal qualities, the meanings of the images, and the context of the piece itself.
While completing the reading I was particularly drawn to the discussion of word and image due to James Elkins conviction that “art history’s words are always doomed to failure on some level, because there are aspects of images that are beyond explaining”. I found this statement intriguing because it presents a paradox in art history; that no matter the research done, or theories used, art history fails the reader, and can only be fulfilled when the artwork is viewed in person. However, art history (although doomed from the perspective of the word and image theory) continues to be studied and researched because from the point of view of the other theories, the merit of a piece of art history can lie in the discussion of art’s iconography, semiotics, role in culture, meaning with respect to the identity of the artist, or any of its other facets.