Graffiti Fall 2018

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.

I have never thought of graffiti as performative. Yet, all of these articles draw a link between the event of viewing and the event of doing graffiti. In “Ancient Graffiti in Context,” Baird and Taylor attempt to define graffiti based on its context. They argue that, when analyzing graffiti, we must look at its location, medium, message, and the cultural and political narrative of the time. However, they take this definition one step further by arguing that the act of graffiti can be seen as an event. Baird and Taylor state that if the act of writing is an event, then graffiti is an object. Inversely, if graffiti is an object, then the interpretation becomes and event again. The use of the term “event” draws on the notion of graffiti as a performative act.

Kellum in her essay, “Spectacle of the Street,” also connects graffiti to the act of preforming. She argues that, in Ancient Rome, the street served as a place of performance and spectacle. She emphasizes the public nature of the street by pointing to the shrines and altars on the street, as well as the games, and sites of intersection. Kellum uses graffiti to understand the street and its performative nature. She points to the graffiti used on street signs and the graffiti at intersections to wish good luck and well being. She also points to the interactive nature of graffiti. She argues that the street is a place where one observes and is observed. Thus, when someone interacts with graffiti (reading it aloud) it becomes a public spectacle.

***added after class

Another common theme seen throughout these articles is the notion of space and place. All of these articles talk about the different locations of graffiti. I have always thought of graffiti as an illicit act on subway cars or in alley ways. However, all these articles point to different places where there is graffiti. In the case of the Frood article, the place of the graffiti is crucial to understanding the graffiti. Frood uses the location of the graffiti in the Egyptian temples to define the temple graffiti. Initially Frood hypothesized that the graffiti on the outside of the temple for non-elites to have access to worship. However, she later learned that the outside was not actually that accessible, and therefore, this graffiti was actually for, and by, the temple personal and the priests. The graffiti showed images of the rituals and practices of the personal and priests, thus bringing the inside to the outside. Like the street, which Kellum, discusses, the temple walls were also a fluid boundary. I think I want to write my research paper on five pointz and gentrification of this area. This essay will look at the relationship between the art and the surrounding place.

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.