Category: AR474

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.

As we familiarize ourselves with the motives and definitions of graffiti art as we move from ancient to contemporary times, one issue still remains present in my mind: the classification of what graffiti is. As mentioned in the article for this week by Paris O’Donnell, it is unclear if at the beginning, graffiti was not classified because it was considered a normal human relationship with past art, or because this method of defacement was not common enough to have a name.

I am consistently suck on the idea that the act of graffiti was such a method of communication that it was not classified as its own form of expression. It makes me question the existence of graffiti in the contemporary realm, and how this expression is so similar (and or different) from the works of antiquity that we look at now. I am curious to explore placement, as well as think more about types of graffiti explored by O’Donnell such as “family arms” and initials. It seems to be these could be similar to the tags used by contemporary artists, yet perceived so differently by the general public

 

 

After reading these essays and articles on medieval graffiti practices and images, I am once again confronted with the contradictions in basic definitions of graffiti. While many of the articles posited medieval graffiti as a normal, encouraged (or tolerated) practice of self-presentation, preservation, documentation, remembrance and communication, the article by Ritsema van Eck exposed the ways in which medieval graffiti was disapproved of by some at the sacro monte of Varallo. Van Eck articulates the challenges at arriving “at any sort of definitive conclusions about graffiti as either authorized or illicit writings in the absence of explicit bans or other types of documented disapproval or approval” (54). This is not to say that I am searching for scholarly consensus on the interpretation and acceptance of medieval graffiti–that is, of course, a preposterous expectation that erases and abstracts a diversity of perspectives, interpretations, and intentions during the Middle Ages. This is simply to point out the rich and thought-provoking nature of diverse scholarly opinions on graffiti.

Graffiti tags serve as a form of constructing immortality––perhaps out of a fear of oblivion. Graves and Rollason argue that “inscribing your name in the fabric of a building is never merely simple, but acts as a way of perpetuating your presence, and identifying with, or in some contexts defying, others associated with that building” (212). In the context of religious spaces, graffiti perhaps served to document pilgrimage, offer prayer, or, as O’Donnell writes, “invigorates intercessional prayer” (82). When inscribed in religious spaces, Matthew Champion argues that studying medieval graffiti enable scholars to infer how ordinary people interacted with the church in a quotidian context. Champion argues that graffiti has the “potential to show us how those ordinary people interacted with the church as an institution and as a building.” In analyzing graffiti locations within a religious space, one may be able to infer the ways in which people engaged with the church, performed and practiced piety, and presented and preserved devotion.

Having never explicitly studied medieval visual and material culture, I am fascinated and captivated by these accounts and cases of graffiti images and writing. I am curious to learn more about different takes on the additive and destructive visions of graffiti.

The readings from last week focussed on the performative aspect of graffiti. The readings this week share the theme of using graffiti to understand history. In all the readings, the authors give examples of using graffiti to understand the cultural, religious, political, and economic trends of the Middle Ages. In Doris Jones-Baker’s essay “English Mediaeval Graffiti and the Local Historian,” Baker discusses the various ways graffiti can be used to understand medieval society. She points to graffiti as records of secular life, graffiti as drawings of historic records, graffiti as records of names, graffiti as records of natural occurrences, and graffiti as records of the architects of the church. Thus, Baker uses graffiti as a historical record. Mia Gaia Trentin,  in her essay,”Medieval and Post-Medieval Graffiti in the Churches of Cyprus, also uses graffiti as a historical record to understand medieval Cyprus society.  Through the analysis of the different styles and types of graffiti in the churches of Cyprus,  Trentin traces the evolution of Cyprus society and the changes in trade, rulers, and religion.

Another interesting theme found throughout these articles is the question of whether graffiti is an illicit or accepted practice and the reasons why graffiti is most commonly found in churches. Marianne Ritsema van Eck explores the question of graffiti in religious spaces in her essay “Graffiti in Medieval and Early Modern Religious Spaces: Illicit or Accepted Practice?” Marianne first discusses the purpose of graffiti as laying claim to its location. She then goes on to argue that graffiti can be used as a social act and/or a devotional act. She argues that it is hard to determine if graffiti was authorized or not without looking at outside documents.

In “Graffiti in Medieval and Early Modern Religious Spaces: Illicit or Accepted Practice?”  Marianne includes two contrasting opinions regarding the appropriateness of graffiti in sacred spaces. In contrast, Blindheim argues that graffiti was not allowed in sacred spaces. Blindheim states that the graffiti found on walls in sacred spaces was done by the church builders and travelers before consecration. After the church became a holy space, Blindheim claims that graffiti stopped because it was deemed unacceptable. In contrast, Annette Jones argues that graffiti is not illicit because the text was appropriate for the space (ie. religious carvings). She then offers a hypothesis for the graffiti in sacred spaces, stating that people wrote their names as a way of commemorating their pilgrimage and/or creating a lasting connection with the divine. This essay, as well as the other readings for this week, made me really think about the nature of graffiti in holy spaces. Last week we looked at graffiti in ancient Egyptian temples, but we also looked at graffiti on the street and in the home.  However, this week, the essays all argue that graffiti was an act of pilgrimage or religious devotion, and therefore, belongs in a sacred place. This notion of whether graffiti is illicit or not relates to my essay topic on Five Pointz and the lawsuit surrounding this graffiti.

After our seminar discussion this past Thursday, I have been reflecting on the significance of the space graffiti creates. Before this class, my definition of graffiti was rather rigid. It consisted of spray paint, subways systems, New York City streets,and grungy European vibes. I have never before thought about the space graffiti creates when it is either performed, or placed. Thinking about graffiti as a ritual act we then must consider the space sacred. It is a place that has been selected to invoke conversation and interaction. I think I have often thought of graffiti as illicit because it is put up without permission, but it is in these places of tension that you have the most interesting interactions. We might also be able to think about these spaces as safe places for conversation that may not always be welcomed by a general public. I am very interested in the idea of using graffiti as a messaging board for political or social movements that might not always be welcomed by the general public.

Going forward I want to focus my research on street art and social movements. I know this is an incredibly large topic, but potentially looking towards the connections between the use of graffiti in Paris, South Africa and Nicaragua I might be able to write a paper that isn’t just a book report.

As this is being rewritten after class, I think everything I say is more a reflection of the class discussion and not my original interpretation of the reading. With that being said, I really appreciated this week’s reading because it forced me to think about graffiti out of the context of cement blocks and spray paint. All of the readings outlined the importance of graffiti outside of the physical appearance of the scratches, carvings and paint. We must look at where the graffiti is located, the placements in relation to one another and even general attitudes towards the object. Graffiti can be seen as a performance, a ritual act, and a platform for conversation.

Reflecting on Blaird and Taylor, we can think of the creation of a graffito as a bodily experience. The physical form and the surface it occupies is crucial in the interpretation of a graffito. As graffiti is often images and text, they have contextual specificity and thus allow us to reconstruct the way a person might have interacted with each graffito. Another point that stuck with me from the Blaird reading, was the description of graffiti as both an act and an object. It is important then to consider how to creates a dialogue. When one object is placed, there can become a conversation, grouping different graffitos together to create this full dialogue. Hierarchies are then created by placing graffitos in hard to reach places.

The main focus of this reading was exploring the ways we think about thinking and ultimately asked us to explore how we engage in knowledge and interpretation.

My main focus throughout this reading was on Hermeneutics, which is the theory and practice of interpretation. It developed primarily as a branch of philosophy and theology and was largely concerned with the interpretation of literary texts. Hermeneutic readers of the bible believed that all biblical stories were divinely inspired and therefore contained moral truths and lessons. Since then, Hermeneutics has been applied to all different kinds of written and spoken texts and cultural practices.

Martin Heideggar asked the question “What does it mean to be?” He argued that human beings don’t exist apart from the world. The world isn’t something separate that needs to be analyzed but rather we emerge from and exist in the world and we can only know it by being a part of it. Understanding isn’t an isolated act of cognition, but a part of human existence.

A work of art has a special character, “It is a being in the Open” where the Open is a proper noun. The Open is a cultural space created by an entire new level of understanding of what it means to be a being. Works of art express a shared understanding of the meaning of being. In this way, art can give understanding to any range of different things.

Art has a stubborn “irreducibility” which is why people argue over the meaning of art. When art no longer functions as a cultural paradigm it simply becomes an object of aesthetic contemplation. Art is about experience not about feeling. Heidegger also argues that art is not representational or symbolic, arguing that this approach can’t even being to capture the way that art functions to shape human experience.  

On the topic of contemporary art,this chapter argues that the contemporary interpreter can never perfectly recreate the artist’s original intentions or the original conditions of reception. Both the artists and the hermeneutists are limited by their different social, cultural, and intellectual horizons. The idea of the Hermeneutic circle is that the meaning expressed by a cultural artifact or practice does not emerge only from the creators intentions, but also depends on the whole system of meaning of which it forms part. We can think of interpretation as a loop, or a circle if you will, where you are only ever able to enter into the middle, past experiences feed your interpretation which in change feeds the larger discourse.

Our discussion on ancient graffiti was broadened my understanding and definition of graffiti. In discussing the readings and case studies of graffiti in the ancient world, I came to realize that each definition offered a different perspective on graffiti’s properties, many of which contradicted the others. Is graffiti defined by its location? By its visibility? By its implied viewership? Is it a ritual act, defined by gesture and the event of its making? Is it ephemeral, in this performative sense, or is it lasting “evidence”? Is it inherently communicative, or is its meaning only produced by the author’s intent? Does graffiti define space? Does space define graffiti? How do legality and commissions relate to graffiti?

The readings for this class and the discussion which followed illuminated the multiplicities of definitions. Just as Deconstructionist theory attempts to find meaning, but discovers that meaning is deferred infinitely, perhaps we might reconcile the elusive nature of “defining” graffiti.