Each of the articles read discuss the performative effect of making and experiencing graffiti. This is a similar idea to what we discussed in the tattoo seminar. The process of creating and viewing graffiti is equally if not more important \u00a0the graffiti itself. How does this relationship change when graffiti is displayed inside of a museum or not on a wall?<\/p>\n
These articles also attempt to define what graffiti is and then break down the meaning based on class, location, and space. The “Spectacle of the Street” does this through discussing the graffiti of Pompeii. The relationship between interior and the exterior street art becomes an important distinction. This relationship forms a fluid boundary, someone like a secret garden. The Baird and Taylor book focuses on the truisms of graffiti and its use as a way to mark ownership. Today we think of graffiti as an illicit medium, but in reality, it has not always been illicit. Graffiti may be viewed as illicit in urban environments, but in a temple or sacred place, ancient graffiti is accepted. This is an idea that Frood explores as well. Egypt seems to be an exception in the way that we think about graffiti because it is already covered in hieroglyphs and inscriptions. Graffiti in Egypt is writing on top of writing.<\/p>\n
A question that I had while doing the reading is can graffiti be temporary? Is chalk art considered graffiti? How does a material \u00a0change the meaning and experience of graffiti?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Each of the articles read discuss the performative effect of making and experiencing graffiti. This is a similar idea to what we discussed in the tattoo seminar. The process of creating and viewing graffiti is equally if not more important \u00a0the graffiti itself. How does this relationship change when graffiti is displayed inside of a … <\/p>\n