Interestingly stated early on in this article, Flemming states that “Graffiti, almost by definition, is produced in media and on sites that make its long survival unlikely” (Flemming, 34). This caught my attention quickly and easily because of the validity that this carries with first thought, but then the questioning that results as consequence. In fact, it makes one question not only responses to the placement of graffiti, but the motives behind the art works when they are in places that will likely not survive. Continuing to look at the perplexities of this statement, it also asks us to rethink the conversation the works are having with the locations in which they are placed.<\/p>\n
I find it astonishing that we think of graffiti in this way, and then continue to find early modern and medieval graffiti in secular places. Without a doubt one of the least likely places for these works to survive, the tend to flock to these locations, and Flemming argues that this should be no surprise. Without a doubt there are places that graffiti artists would find longer lasting recognition, however within these secular places their works gain meaning in relation to the works they cover, while also in a larger social and economic setting that is the town and the church where they can be found.<\/p>\n
As Flemming says “In fact, I imagine the whitewashed domestic wall as being the primary scene of writing in early modern England”, and I seem to agree. However, the ideas behind the production of graffiti continue to be counter intuitive to the path many would assume.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Interestingly stated early on in this article, Flemming states that “Graffiti, almost by definition, is produced in media and on sites that make its long survival unlikely” (Flemming, 34). This caught my attention quickly and easily because of the validity that this carries with first thought, but then the questioning that results as consequence. In … <\/p>\n