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, \u00a0in her essay,”Medieval and Post-Medieval Graffiti in the Churches of Cyprus, also uses graffiti as a historical record to understand medieval Cyprus society. \u00a0Through the analysis of the different styles and types of graffiti in the churches of Cyprus, \u00a0Trentin traces the evolution of Cyprus society and the changes in trade, rulers, and religion.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
In “Graffiti in Medieval and Early Modern Religious Spaces: Illicit or Accepted Practice?” \u00a0Marianne 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. \u00a0However, 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 … <\/p>\n