Author: edyckman

October 18 Reflection

When thinking about what I wanted to write my semester research paper on for this course, I knew I wanted to explore something that we had not really talked about that much. I was inspired by the D’Alleva chapter on Feminisms and Linda Nochlin’s 1971 influential essay “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” After reading Nancy Macdonald’s essay on ‘The Graffiti Subculture’, I knew I had found what I wanted to research.

Macdonald argues that within the graffiti subculture, “you are what you write”, and that “what you write determines exactly who you are and where you stand…unless you are a woman” (313).  Unlike her male counterparts, a woman will always carry the baggage of her gender. Her gender will immediately make her stand out prevent her from ever being fully accepted within the graffiti community. After reading this essay and our class discussions, I knew I wanted to take this further and figure out why there aren’t been more female graffiti artists. I wanted to explore the various social, political and cultural constraints that prevent a woman from the full experience of the graffiti subculture.

 

I am researching Outsider Art for my senior capstone, so it was really interesting for me to read these articles and to think about the term “appropriation” within this context. By definition, outsider art is dependent on the marginality of artists. These are works of art created by so called ‘outsiders’, who can be people on the fringes of society who lack formal artistic education and training, and who are not exposed to contemporary culture and society. Dubuffet was inspired by the works of surrealists and those of patients in psychiatric facilities. He came up with the term ‘art brut’ in the 1940s-50s to define art that was ‘untainted’ by the culture and norms of the academy. Outsider art was proposed as the American equivalent of the term in the 70s, but has evolved significantly since then.

One issue that arises with outsider art (besides its incredibly broad definition over who and what are included), are the ethics behind collecting and curating outsider art.  One issue that Plesch and Ashley mention in their article (which fits well with the practice of ‘insiders’ curating the work of ‘outsiders’), is that there is always a relationship between cultural unequals, where a dominate culture will appropriate a weaker culture, leaving the latter with no control over its representations/products. This reveals a question of moral legitimacy of taking art from a less powerful source/culture, at what point do we draw the line when generally, this art is being taken and exhibited for the financial gain and aesthetic pleasure of others? 

It is interesting then that Plesch and Ashley argue that appropriation is aimed at creating and/or consolidating identities, and that that is usually a collective identity. I’m not sure if this was the intention, but it made me think of how Outsider Art has come to be its own category. For decades, we have looked to outsider artists to satisfy our desires and interests in the ‘other.’ We are inspired by their raw creativity and talent, but for many of these artists, they are creating art for themselves and for most of the early artists at least, would not consider themselves to be ‘artists’ at all. So looking at it this way, we are ‘appropriating’ their art and backgrounds to create a new culture/artistic catch-all category to fit our ‘dominant’ culture’s market and aesthetic values. 

This chapter in Understanding Graffiti forces us to examine the ever evolving placement and market of graffiti. In almost every paper we have read in this course, each one starts with a definition of what graffiti is. And while definitions vary in specificity, the most common theme is that they are on surfaces which were not originally intended to receive it. Meaning, that graffiti is supposed to be site specific, as there is an “important sociopolitical aspect linked to a work’s geographical location, and as such, the work’s placement within a community, and within a system of relations is much more crucial to its meaning than aesthetic form alone” (135).

Graffiti is praised for giving voice to marginalized groups and for helping to bring together communities. Which is why I think it is so interesting that the French street artist “Zevs” is so comfortable with his work being displayed in art galleries. His work is all about speaking out against big corporations, especially his work with liquidating logos. He does not believe that taking his art out of their original contexts changes anything, when in reality, it is changing everything. “The only prerequisite for creating street graffiti is the desire to be heard” (135). But, by taking his art out of the street,  the audience and art is being restricted to the inside of a gallery. Institutions are deciding what kinds of art should be “heard”, and that is not what graffiti is about at all.

One question we keep coming back to throughout this seminar, is what circumstances encourage or inspire people to create graffiti? The readings from this session showed us that graffiti can be made as a way to pass the time, show proof of visit, or as a form of political protest.  But to me, the reason depends entirely on circumstance, which is why graffiti struggles to be categorized and defined, which sometimes allows for it to be such a broad catch-all term.

Additionally, when the space changes, so does its viewership and context. We tend to think of graffiti as mainly occurring on a local level, but in the case of Cairo, when conflict graffiti is shared via the internet, there is a new “global street” that emerges. Instead of just a community unifying together against violence, the world is also sharing in their anger and fear.  As the graffiti becomes such a dominant presence on the internet, the space that people are interacting and viewing the graffiti is changing. When the space changes to the internet, how do people interpret and experience this graffiti differently, if at all?

 

 

I think most of the time we tend to think of graffiti more on the local level. We look at it with the intention of learning more about the author and their communities, as well as providing cultural and historical context for the time. In his chapter in Understanding Graffiti Lennon argues that “graffiti created geographies of protest that were locally enacted but globally contextualized” (62).  This shows us a slightly different side to graffiti in which we see graffiti being used as a form of protest, rather than just a place for messages. In other readings, especially with the reading discussing Rome, we have discussed the significance of the street as a home and place to messages, street signs, signatures, important town information. However, in Cairo during a time of political turmoil, graffiti is being used as an outlet and tool to give voice to the outraged as well as to show everyone around the world how Cairo’s political, social and geographic structures were being altered by the violence in the streets.

I also thought it was interesting how Lennon connected the street and social media. He mentions that even though graffiti in these city spaces are site specific, they are also a global entity. Meaning that when conflict graffiti in Cairo were shared over the internet, Egyptians abroad were connected with images of home as well as the global public was informed of the unrest and conflict. It was the simplest way for Egyptian protesters to spread their messages and show their anger. I find it so interesting that Lennon quoted Saskia Sassen to mention the significance of the “global street” that has become a home for the powerless. As we have traveled throughout medieval Europe, New York City, and even Barbados in this course studying graffiti, we have examined the various reasons that inspire people to leave a mark behind, and what that means about the world around them at the time. We have seen the common theme of graffiti being used as a way to communicate for those who might not ordinarily have the same tools or access to “higher” communication/art forms. I think graffiti is just such a powerful, yet underrated tool that has the ability to connect so many people together. It literally gives voice to the voiceless, and makes them feel like they are being heard when photographs are posted and shared around the world.

 

I found these readings to be incredibly interesting within the broader historical context and definition of graffiti. Something we have been wrestling with in all the readings in this course, is what graffiti actually is. We have found that the definition really seems to vary depending on cultural and historical context, location, and intentionality of its author. In general, we define graffiti as “unauthorized writing in public spaces”, however Paris O’Donell and Van Eck quote Juliet Fleming in order to prove that using graffiti as a term for medieval and early modern ‘graffiti’ can lead to difficulties. Fleming argues that writing on walls ‘was not distinguished from other writing practices in early modern England, and not yet considered a vice’. Meaning, what we now think of as graffiti, was not a known concept then, it was just simply writing on walls—which does not quite fit the standard definition.

There is a restaurant in my hometown where people have been signing their names for decades (my dad’s name was on the wall from when he was in college), and I think I signed my name on the walls of this pancake house at least four times. I remember wanting people to see my name, and I loved trying to find names that I recognized. Having read Van Eck’s piece, I now realize that this was me using graffiti as a social act, as it helped to facilitate a community among my town and create a sense of place. When the restaurant changed owners, everyone’s signatures were painted over and erased. They did not see it as a tradition, but only as ugly scribbles and by erasing it, they equivocated it to vandalism.

While that is something personal to me, it shows that people just want to leave their mark in places, to leave proof that they were there long after they’ve gone. Pilgrims visiting Holy Sites left their names, coat of arms, symbols etc. in order to leave a mark of one’s presence at a holy place. It goes beyond just simple carvings on walls, as they are proof of a site’s continuing value, and hope for a lasting connection with the divine. In the case of holy sites, graffiti were not just about markings, they had a devotional, social and personal purpose that do not deserve to be erased and thought of as vandalism.

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.

 

 

Throughout my academic career, I have encountered Sigmund Freud several times. However, his “penis argument” was new to me. I had never heard of this part of his Oedipus vs. Electra complex, and found his argument to be very…quaint. It was so interesting to learn how easily he categorized the world. For someone who had such advanced ideas in the 19^th century that emphasized the experience and psyche of the unconscious individual, it is contradictory to have such a narrow opinion of male and female gender and sexuality. As D’Alleva says, his theories “reflect Freud’s experience of nineteenth-century bourgeois male culture, not the range of human experience.” He claims to understand and speak for all, but ends up missing so much. Freud places the penis at the very center of all of humanity’s sexuality, what we all apparently strive to have/attain, which consequently belittles the female clitoris and vagina. Which really, just exhibits the pattern and power of ‘the man’, something that has become such a dominant theme throughout our history.

It is interesting to study Freud within the discipline of art history, as he is usually more relevant within the fields of psychology, political science and philosophy. Additionally, his low opinion of women and their sexuality is an interesting component to add to art history, which already struggles with the lack of great female artists. So many women were denied access to education and artistic training, mainly because they were not wealthy white men. As D’Alleva mentions, Freud has had many critics for the great majority of his theories, but yet some of his arguments in art history remain uncontested, as he attempted to psychoanalytically explain great artists like Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci. Freud’s approach to art history consists of psychoanalyzing the artist’s intentions, personality and works. Most art historians do not use Freud’s pathographical approach (with good reason), as it is incredibly difficult already to figure out an artist’s conscious intentions, never mind their unconscious intentions. However, it is certainly intriguing to read Freud’s attempts to understand these complex artists.