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 \u201cunauthorized writing in public spaces\u201d, however Paris O\u2019Donell and Van Eck quote Juliet Fleming in order to prove that using graffiti as a term for medieval and early modern \u2018graffiti\u2019 can lead to difficulties. Fleming argues that writing on walls \u2018was not distinguished from other writing practices in early modern England, and not yet considered a vice\u2019. Meaning, what we now think of as graffiti, was not a known concept then, it was just simply writing on walls\u2014which does not quite fit the standard definition.<\/p>\n
There is a restaurant in my hometown where people have been signing their names for decades (my dad\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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\u2019ve gone. Pilgrims visiting Holy Sites left their names, coat of arms, symbols etc. in order to leave a mark of one\u2019s presence at a holy place. It goes beyond just simple carvings on walls, as they are proof of a site\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 … <\/p>\n