Scholars Home | Sophomore Projects
Urban Art in the Concrete Jungle:
New York-Style Graffiti as Contemporary Art
by Amie Csiszer '02
see PowerPoint presentation
Table of Contents
Preface
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: The History of NYC Graffiti
In the Beginning
The Graffiti-Art Movement
The War on the Trains
The Writing on the Wall
Chapter 3: Graffiti Today
What is Graffiti?
Defining the Boundaries of Graffiti Art
Support and Opposition in the War on Graffiti
Chapter 4: In the Year 2000
An Issue of Illegality
The Rise of a New Empire...Maybe
Works Cited
Preface
The main objective of this project is to analyze graffiti in its social context as a form of contemporary art. I explore graffiti as art, as social commentary on public and private space, and also as an illegal activity and a "public eyesore." The focus of my project is on the words and works of actual graffiti artists. The research paper examines the history of graffiti, its flirtation with the art world, and focus on current challenges faced by graffiti artists. It discusses the artists' background, detractors' views of graffiti (e.g. anti-graffiti campaigns) and artists' responses, street "bombing" vs. commissioned works, and the meaning of "street art." It also examines the "war on graffiti" and evaluates the debate over whether the opposition to graffiti is a threat to freedom of expression. The visual supplement consists of photographs of graffiti works in New York City, complemented by sketches of works in colored pencil and examples of street art, a related but distinct form. The visual supplement puts the paper in context and captures the essence of graffiti-art.
Graffiti artists are extremely proud of what they do. Because society does not recognize graffiti as art, these artists are being prevented from doing what they love to do. My goal in this project is to examine both sides of the issue and, more importantly, to present the works of these graffiti artists the way that they see them--as works of art.
This project would not have been possible without funding from the IEF Committee and the supervision of my advisor, Professor Ian Condry. I would like to thank Ariadne Papagapitos and Roberto Olazagasti for their invaluable assistance with my photos, and Adam Murphy for being my chauffeur.
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects
Chapter 1
Introduction
Is graffiti really what you think it is? Do you know what graffiti is? For nineteen years of my life, the word "graffiti" has failed to have any significance to me. It was a word that occasionally caught my ear, but I never really stopped to think about. To me, graffiti was nothing more than scribble--black paint or marker on other people's property. It was ugly, done by "bad" kids, and it was illegal. End of story. Three terms of class with Professor Charlotte Eyerman, however, opened my eyes to graffiti and helped me to recognize it as an art form.
The inspiration for this project grew out of my adventurous trips to New York City with Professor Eyerman's Art History Classes. During both the fall and winter terms of my freshman Year, my Scholar's Preceptorial class accompanied our professor, Doctor Charlotte Eyerman, on the Art History trip to New York City. It was during my rather aimless adventuring in the city that I first encountered "graffiti art." It was awesome--the elaborate, colorful designs on the walls that were executed only in spraypaint. I was intrigued.
For my Scholar's Project, I wanted to do something that was research-oriented but gave me the opportunity to explore something new and to use my artistic skills. After taking a Contemporary Art History class, I was inspired to do a project on graffiti. I wanted to share the appreciation that I had gained for this unappreciated and underground art form. Anti-graffiti propaganda is everywhere, even on the Internet; carried by the media, it reaches a broad audience. My interest was in the other side of the war on graffiti--the opinions of and challenges faced by the artists themselves. Graffiti artists are extremely proud of what they do. Because society does not recognize graffiti as art, these artists are being prevented from doing what they love to do. My goal in this project was to examine both sides of the issue and, more importantly, to present the works of these graffiti artists the way that they see them--as works of art.
The first section of this paper is an explanation of the history of history of New York-style graffiti. It was necessary to provide an extensive background in order to set up the following discussion. The second section attempts to define graffiti and to compare and contrast different types of graffiti. My project focuses on one particular type of graffiti, New York-style graffiti, and attempts to establish it as a form of contemporary art. This paper explains that graffiti is a very public yet simultaneously anonymous and underground art form. Graffiti, in its true form, cannot exist within the confines of an art gallery. This, along with the current illegal nature of graffiti, is the cause of general misunderstandings between graffiti artists and "the public." Though I present arguments from both sides of the "war on graffiti," I attempt to dispel the common stereotypes and concerns that prevent New York-style graffiti from being recognized as an art form. Finally, there is a discussion of the challenges faced by graffiti artists and the dynamics of the graffiti subculture in New York. The paper concludes with an explanation of current trends in the graffiti subculture and an evaluation of the future of graffiti.
This project would not have been possible without funding from the IEF Committee and the supervision of my advisor, Professor Ian Condry. I would like to thank Ariadne Papagapitos and Roberto Olazagasti for their invaluable assistance with my photos, and Adam Murphy for being my chauffeur.
Graffiti is essentially an underground art form; consequently, so is its subculture. Fortunately, the Internet has made this underground subculture much more accessible (this will be explained further in my paper). Art Crimes, maintained by Susan Farrell, is one of the largest graffiti sites on the Internet. Searching the information on this site and its numerous links gave me some background information on graffiti with which to begin my search. Also available on Art Crimes was a bibliography of graffiti-related books and articles specifically for people interested in researching graffiti. I contacted Susan Farrell via email, told her about my project, and asked if she had any suggestions for my research. I took her up on a suggestion to post a notice on alt.graffiti.com--a newsgroup frequented by graffiti artists--asking for artists interested in speaking with me about their work or showing me New York City graffiti sites. This was how I met Omar.
Omar Padial is a thirty-year-old artist who has been writing graffiti since he was a kid. He grew up in the Bronx at a time when everyone was into Hip-hop, rap, and graffiti. When I asked how he became a graffiti artist, Omar explained, "I couldn't dance, or rap, so I went with graffiti." For kids such as Omar, graffiti was about recognition at a time when they felt like they were no ones. According to Omar, they were "street kids with no goals, no help from the schools, no supervision--it [graffiti] gave them something to do." As these kids matured, so did their perspective on life and the meaning of graffiti. Omar recognizes that, as a graffiti writer, he was a product of his environment. Though he still writes graffiti, he insists that, for himself and other graffiti artists who continue to write, this is not the case.
Omar is both a self-taught artist and a self-educated adult. Looking at his past, one sees a young man who stole paint and defaced public property. What one also sees is a motivated young man who frequented the library to read up on psychology and drugs out of his own interest. Though he would not let me write about his job, I will say that he holds a well-paying, white-collar position--not something one would expect from a graffiti artist. Omar was extremely personable and helpful with my project. He showed me famous graffiti spots in New York City and provided me with invaluable inside information about the New York graffiti subculture. Meeting and working with him has only strengthened my conviction that the stereotype placed on graffiti and graffiti artists is unfounded.
The intention of this project is to explain the history of graffiti and to dispel some of the false assumptions made by the public with respect to the graffiti subculture. After a chance encounter with Omar, one would not expect him to be a graffiti artist. Similarly, people do not expect graffiti to be art. With the help of my advisor, Professor Ian Condry, I have put together a research paper and visual supplement that serve to achieve my goals. These photographs are vivid examples of graffiti-art. Hopefully, both the paper and the photographs capture and convey the essence of graffiti-art that I find so intriguing. But before one can understand and interpret the photographs, it is necessary to know the history behind these images.
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects
Chapter 2
The History of NYC Graffiti
In the Beginning...New York City-the birthplace and homeland of graffiti, or is it? Though graffiti raged like wildfire throughout Manhattan and its suburbs, the spark that started the fire came from Philadelphia. At least a year before New York youths started wearing out their Magic Markers, Philadelphians became accustomed to seeing the tall, skinny letters left behind on walls, trains, and other street fixtures. What distinguished Philly writers from everyday, bathroom-door scribblers was that these "marker-and-paint wielding outlaws orchestrated and calculated their methods and madness" (Light 1999:1999:35). Theirs were not merely random scrawling. The names and numbers marking the urban landscape were strategically placed by Philly youths with the intention of letting anyone and everyone know who they were and where they had been. Another interesting aspect of this "new" graffiti was that, because of its main objective of "self-advertisement," using obscenities in the spray-can and marker signatures was unnecessary and, consequently, rarely found (Schjeldahl 1973:25). Nevertheless, city officials were already tired of dealing with the graffiti problem in 1971, when the New York Times ran an article that would forever alter the image of the Big Apple.
On July 21, 1971, " 'Taki 183' Spawns Pen Pals" unintentionally made a hero and idol out of a Washington Heights teenager. Demitrius, also known as "Taki," carried a magic marker with him wherever he went, documenting his travels by leaving his nickname and address on whatever happened to be around. "When he began sneaking his name and street number onto ice cream trucks in the neighborhood...nobody else was writing similar graffiti" (NYT 1971:37). At the time the article was written, other names and street numbers had already begun to appear all over the city. Before long, there was an explosion of graffiti in New York that rivaled Philadelphia's. In Taki's explanation for his actions, he uttered a sentence that would echo in the minds of New York's teens and in the city's streets-"'you do it for yourself'" (NYT 1971:37). His unassuming actions, made famous in the news, proved inspirational to the youth of New York City. Taki was a recent high school graduate with immediate college plans; he was not, by any means, a juvenile delinquent. Only twice had his passion for graffiti gotten him into trouble: once he was suspended from school for writing on walls and the other time he received a stern lecture from a Secret Service Agent "for writing on a Secret Service car during a parade" (NYT 1971:37). Quite suddenly, Taki became a celebrity, the first recognized "tagger," and New York City became the birthplace and homeland of graffiti.
Though "tagging" appeared in Philly first, it took hold and rapidly grew into a subculture in New York (the following history is drawn largely from Chalfant 1984, Light 1999). One strong influence was a Philly-born writer named Top Cat. After moving to Manhattan, his tall, skinny lettering style was immediately adopted by other writers and eventually evolved into the infamous style known as Broadway Elegant (Light 1999:36). Most writers also adopted a format for tagging similar to the one originated by Taki 183. A "tag" consisted of "a) the name that appears on your birth certificate...; b) a word or nom de plume that sounds mad splendid and isn't too long in character length...; or c) a letter combo that works..." (Light 1999:38). The key was to have a tag that told other writers something about you, but looked good and flowed nicely when written. Anyone could have a tag, but a tag was useless, meaningless, unless it was written. The purpose of a tag was to display it in public, for people to admire or despise-either way it drew attention. A person who chose to put his mark on the world was a true writer, "...his universe is forever, his canvas is infinite, his actions become history.... He dies for his word, for he knows the written expression will always have the final say-so" (Light 1999:37). Real writers demanded recognition and rebellion-they felt that their actions were part of something much greater than a simple scribble on the wall. Tagging was a way for youth to assert themselves and to communicate not only with each other, but also with the world around them.
Unfortunately, as the number of taggers grew, the world around them was becoming too small to support them. Taki's new found fame had created more writers, but more writers meant less space to write. The sheer number of tags being put up in any given area obscured the recognition sought after by taggers. To be certain, "mere marker signatures would make the cut no longer" (Light 1999:37). Even when taggers turned in their markers for spray paint in an attempt to beat the competition with size, they soon realized that a simple name with a single can just would not earn them the celebrity they dreamed of. The "new" graffiti, though "stylishly calligraphed and ornamented"-had a sameness to style and scale that, once it saturated the urban landscape-became tired-looking and unoriginal (Scheldahl 1973:25). Writers knew that they had to do something bigger and bolder, something that would grab everyone's attention; something that stood out in a crowd of tags and refused to be ignored.
Originally, taggers had primarily occupied themselves with writing inside the trains. Posting a tag on the interior of a train was easy, convenient, and it was an excellent way to assure that people would see it as they traveled around the city. Additionally, tagging the subways gave a writer both variety and challenge, considering the numerous surfaces-there were many subway lines, each with its own trains and their own cars. A writer's goal was to put up more tags than his competition and to make them bigger and more visible. "By 1972, sheer mass pushed the life-size scribes to the outer chassis.... Eventually whole cars were covered-end to end, top to bottom" (Light 1999:38). Graffiti writers decided to maximize the surface area the subway cars presented to them, turning the exterior of the cars into tags that were larger than life.
The shift of focus from the interior to the exterior of the trains marked a turning point in the evolution of graffiti. The initial innovation was when the writers began tagging the interior of the trains-with the trains, their names became mobile and were carried throughout the city. "Spraycan art evolved on the side of a moving train. To be sure it can easily be translated to a fixed surface, but it could never have started out there.... The trains were the arena where the writer could prove himself, and it was the adventure that caught everyone's attention" (Chalfant 1984:8). Putting a tag on the outside of a car assured that more people would see it-no longer would one's name be confined to the eyes of privileged passengers within the cars. The goal of a graffiti writer is and has always been "to stretch the tallest, tag the highest, most interesting, most dangerous. To hit the most economic spots-the places with maximum eye gain..." (Light 1999:36). With this in mind, writing on the exterior made perfect sense. On the side of a subway car, a writer's name, style, and message was impossible to miss, no matter where it traveled.
Not only did the trains give a writer better visibility, but they also provided him with bigger canvases. Writers let their imaginations run wild along the sides of the great metal worms. In 1973, the Transit Authority reported that "the conventional 'quick treatment' graffiti-writing" was leveling off, being replaced by what officials considered "a more irksome defacement, the 'grand design,' or 'masterpiece'" (NYT 1973:L39). Masterpieces were the result of more area to work with and pressure to beat out the competition. Writers turned their tags into large, multicolored inscriptions created with multiple cans of spray paint that took up at least half the length of a subway car. Instead of attacking trains on the move, writers did their work "while the trains lay idle in yards and lay up areas," affording them much more time to be creative (NYT 1973:L39). "Pieces" became "bigger, deffer, more elaborate: arrows, clouds, flames, and stars helped separate the men-and women-from a dime-a-dozen breed of less experienced, determined sprayers, better know in the writing community as 'toys'" (Light 1999:37). Writers formerly identified in name only became known for the creation of their own unique styles.
With the development of style, writers began experimenting with new types of lettering. Originally, there were block letters-simple and straightforward, they made sure people got the point. Soon there were bubble letters, 3-D letters, computer-style letters, and curvy letters. And then there was Wildstyle, "a transmission made by writers for writers, took the eye stimulation to a brand new high....the official language of the new millenium....conventional letters hidden behind abstract curves and edges....wildstyle embodied anything that creatively took chances" (Light 1999:38-39). Wildstyle opened a world of creative possibility to writers. The letters of the original tags were often illegible, as focus shifted toward color, movement, themes, and the use of comic and cartoon characters to augment the pieces. Wildstyle forced writers to build upon the creativity in their works. With graffiti artists writing Wildstyle, being noticed and gaining recognition became more challenging. Pieces had to be elaborate, well thought-out, and well placed in order to compete with other writers. In essence, Wildstyle changed graffiti from a teenage past time into a serious art form.
As graffiti became more serious, writers became more serious about each other. Groups of graffiti artists would meet at local restaurants or hangouts to discuss their latest works and plan out their next piece. Pieces, for the most part, were meticulously planned out on paper before graffiti artists even considered heading to the train yard. Consequently, a new tagging style appeared called a "throw-up." Throw-ups were stylistically somewhere in between a simple tag and a masterpiece. They were generally done in only two or three colors-usually a tag with an outline. Writers who wanted to do something quick but more intricate and noticeable than a tag utilized throw-ups. Writers were respected more for doing throw-ups than they were for doing simple tags, but nothing gained a writer as much attention as a piece.
Notoriety, skill, and being "up" became extremely important once graffiti writers began networking and forming "crews." A crew was essentially a club of writers who had a great deal of mutual respect and trust in one another and who enjoy working with one another. Crews allowed artists to pool ideas and supplies and to work toward the common goal of gaining group identity. Membership in a crew was a symbol of status. In order to gain an invitation to join, a writer first had to establish a name for himself and to gain crew members' attention. Writers did so by being "up," writing numerous tags frequently and regularly-literally covering the city with their names. A crew needed to be impressed not only by the number of tags up, but also by how often they were up and by how skillfully they were done. If a crew liked a writer's work, then he would be invited to join. Crews were characterized by the style and skill of their writers.
The formation of crews revolutionized New York City graffiti subculture by creating and establishing a hierarchy amongst graffiti writers. Writers strove to gain membership in crews known for having the best writers. Kids who were inexperienced or incompetent were known as "toys." Their goal was to get their tag up as much and as often as possible in hopes that a well-respected crew would notice them. Once a toy was taken into a crew he began a sort of graffiti apprenticeship. Toys assisted crew members with their works, while simultaneously developing their own skills and styles. Writers an crews were motivated not only to get their own names up, but the names of their crews as well-getting a crew name up brought recognition to all crew members. Consequently, crew members would often work together on pieces to make their crew more competitive.
Groups of writers working were able to create incredible, breathtaking pieces on the sides of the subway trains. Literally, the works of graffiti artists covered the city. When graffiti crews took over in the mid-70s, an era in graffiti history called the "Train Dayz"-which lasted nearly two decades-began. Before they would head out to the train yards, groups of graffiti artists would "rack up," or steal paint from the easiest available source. They knew all the places where the Transit Authority liked to hide the trains that were not running. Armed with plenty of paint and plenty of skill, their goal was to "bomb" the trains-cover whole cars from top to bottom with elaborate pieces. The Train Dayz were known for these "burners" (sometimes referred to as '80s burners) that were intended to beat out any and all competition. Not only were these pieces well executed, but their vibrant colors and styling also emanated raw energy and movement. The '80s burners were symbolic of the intense thrill graffiti writers experienced when creating a piece and the pride they felt when they saw "their" train thundering down the tracks.
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects
The Graffiti-Art MovementWith their flamboyantly decorated pieces being displayed on trains all over the city, it was only a matter of time before New York's art community began to take graffiti artists seriously. The intricate detail, brilliant color, and bold designs on the trains were already being publicized daily by the press. In an effort to entertain readers (and perhaps themselves as well) some reporters even attempted to analyze the different styles. Peter Schjeldahl, of the New York Times, observed "the Brooklyn kids like quasi-Art Nouveau 'swirls' while Bronxites go in for 'bubble' lettering" (1973:25). Regardless of who was doing what, the works of graffiti artists refused to be ignored and, as a result, graffiti gained a bigger audience.
What the art world found intriguing about graffiti was its inherent state of contradiction. Graffiti artists made a point of distinguishing themselves as individuals, yet they often worked together on pieces and were deeply involved within their crews. In the same respect, by creating pieces that were very large and colorful and by using a nickname as his subject matter, a graffiti artist was unabashedly displaying himself to the public. Yet the use of a tag maintained a certain extent of anonymity for the artist and wildstyle lettering made the tags virtually illegible. Though the work of graffiti artists was intended for public viewing, people not familiar with the graffiti subculture were prevented from fully understanding and appreciating these works. New York's art community attempted to bridge the gap between the public and these budding young artists by forming organizations aimed at getting graffiti off of the streets and into the galleries.
Beginning in the late 70's, the art world focused itself on "collecting" graffiti artists. Non-writers formed organizations such as United Graffiti Artists (U.G.A.) and Nation of Graffiti Artists (N.O.G.A) in an attempt to create a more socially acceptable form of graffiti. They lured young artists off of the streets by providing them with workshops, supplies, and a place to paint without distraction. The additional incentive for the graffiti artist was a chance to be famous-not just in his neighborhood or in the city, but a chance to be recognized nationally. Gallery showings would bring writers the attention they wanted, the praise they felt that they deserved, and it gave them a chance to get paid for something they considered fun (Light 1999:39-40).
In 1973, U.G.A. had one of the first large, highly publicized graffiti-art shows at the Razor Gallery in Soho. Hugo Martinez, the director of U.G.A., required that his artists swear to quit their illegal graffiti writing in order to become part of U.G.A. and to become professional artists. Peter Schjeldahl, covering the exhibition, commented that, "the show's main attraction is a 30-foot collaborative mural bearing the artful scrawls of more than a dozen graffiti all-stars, including Snake I, Stitch, Spank, SJK 171, Coco, AMRL, C.A.T. 87, Mico, Phase II, T-Rex 131, Flint 707, and Bama. It's a glory, a cleaner, more brilliant version of a lovingly worked-over subway car" (1973:25). Artists and non-artists alike were fascinated by the translation of this urban, transient art into the more subdued gallery setting and onto a fixed surface. Among other things, it gave spectators a chance to view the pieces devoid of distraction-when a New Yorker was late for work, the last thing on her mind was stopping to admire the graffiti as her train rolled in.
When the works of graffiti artist were placed in a more socially acceptable setting, they elicited a more positive response from the public. Graffiti made more sense to the public when it was presented as the newest form of modern art, as opposed to the newest form of juvenile delinquency. The focus on color and the shameless self-promotion in the pieces immediately allowed the art world to classify graffiti as "Pop-Art," the newest, anything-goes artistry that had gripped the galleries both nationally and internationally for the past two decades. Graffiti pieces were eye-candy for collectors and critics who delighted in their shrewd analyses and insightful commentary as they formulated new ways of describing what they saw. In his article on the Razor Gallery exhibit, Peter Schjeldahl tried his hand at verbally illustrating two pieces by Phase II and Bama to his readers: "Phase II's name is couched in fat, sensual, screaming-pink script set in an ambience of blue billows. Bama's painting is a lively fantasia at once free-form and intensely stylized-like an exploded Art Deco logo-in red and orange on yellow, butted with purple and white" (1973:25). Though most of the motifs used in the works were nothing new, graffiti-art had an element of abstraction, in addition to conveying a strong sense of raw emotion, which collectors found both irresistible and highly marketable.
New York's art community seized the opportunity to profit from this rogue art form. In the late '70s, the galleries downtown became the new graffiti scene. Considering the impermanent, mobile nature of graffiti on the trains, it was quite a feat to have a collection of pieces in one place. Probably the most important thing accomplished by the art world, however, was being able to get so many graffiti artists together in one place during one period of time. Finally, the people behind the names on the trains were made public. Some of these artists were just as outrageous, colorful, and dynamic as their artwork. In fact, the media soon realized that graffiti artist were just as marketable, if not more so, than the graffiti itself.
When it came time for society to meet the artists of the graffiti world, it was given a glimpse of a thriving subculture that it had previously been unaware of. In many ways graffiti was one the key elements and, obviously, the most public element of this urban subculture; but graffiti was only part of it. For the youth of this subculture, a style of music known as "Hip Hop" and a style of dance called "break-dancing" were just as popular as graffiti writing. All three of these art forms-graffiti, Hip-Hop, and break-dancing-were interconnected with each other in the ghetto lifestyle of inner-city teens. The vibrant graffiti works complemented the pounding rhythms and masterfully created rhymes of rap artists. When trying to describe the Rock Steady Crew (a break-dancing group), one artist commented that they moved their bodies "like wildstyle letters" (Moufarrege 1982:89 qtd. in Powers 1996). Almost as quickly as art collectors had picked up the graffiti artists, the music industry was turning them and their friends into audio stars.
By the 1980's, graffiti had become synonymous with Hip-Hop. It was rap music and break-dancing that brought New York's subculture to the attention of the rest of the world. As the latest new music trend, Hip-Hop was rapidly spread through radio, television, and the news. When Hip-Hop artists went on tour, graffiti went with them. The new sights and sounds of the urban subculture immediately captivated teenagers who were previously unaware of the artistic feats of New York's youth. These kids were not unlike the teenagers in New York when the media first brought 'Taki 183' to their attention. "In many cities, writer's first exposure to graffiti art was at a Hip Hop concert, often starring the Rock Steady Crew, one of whose members was Doze, a writer from New York." Before long, there were films, videos, and books that "made heroes of the young forerunners from New York's streets-Africa Bambaata, the Rock Steady Crew, Phase 2, Blade, Seen, Skeme, Dondi, Lee to name only a few" (Chalfant 1984:8). What began as a New York subculture became international youth popular culture.
Though Hip-Hop was being broadcast over the airwaves, it was a landmark documentary called Style Wars that took life on the New York City streets and transplanted it, intact, to teens around the world. Style Wars was a detailed, insightful look at the scene where graffiti and break-dancing were born. It showed the world what the Train Dayz were all about. The makers of the documentary followed it up with a book titled Subway Art, which offered readers the history of New York graffiti and comments by its founding artists. "Kase 2's formidable presence in the film Style Wars and the book Subway Art prompted writers in Pittsburgh and San Francisco to adopt his style and the camouflage technique he invented called 'computer rock'" (Chalfant 1984:8). Eventually, a no-budget movie starring New York graffiti writers Lee and Lady pink and MCs Busy Bee and Grandmaster Caz pushed graffiti over the top and brought it international fame (Light 1999:40). This publicity was exactly what graffiti artists needed to get themselves out of the Soho galleries and into the international art market.
Following fast on the heels of Pop Art, European art collectors were constantly looking for the latest breaking trend in American art. They were quick to recognize graffiti as a unique new art form with tremendous potential. In 1983, Yaki Kornblit, a collector from Amsterdam, arrived in New York with the intention of introducing graffiti to the enthusiastic European art market. He organized a breakthrough exhibit a the Museum Boymans-van Beuningen in Rotterdam and successfully launched the professional art careers of Dondi, Crash, Ramellzee, Futera 2000, Zephyr, Quick, Pink, Blade, Seen, and Bil Blast (Chalfant 1984:7). Art collectors and gallery owners in Europe received graffiti with open arms. They had been looking in on the New York graffiti scene from an outsider's perspective: because the graffiti did not originate on their streets in their cities, they were able to view it as art rather than vandalism. Graffiti writers exhibiting their works in European galleries were respected and recognized as artists from day one. Writers who originated the technique and styles of this new art form were able to write freely and exhibit their work in Europe. They also had the unique experience of being able to observe, first-hand, as their creation took hold outside of New York and the United States. Newly inspired writers in foreign countries felt that, "through the media, the culture of graffiti was transplanted intact, embracing language, history, customs, and rules, bombing, 'racking', and the competitive spirit" (Chalfant 1984:8). However, the graffiti being exported from the United States was commercialized and superficial in the eyes of the original New York artists. Though they were excited about the spread of graffiti, the New York writers felt that the meaning and the spirit had been lost to writers in other countries.
Despite all of the advances that graffiti artists had made, there was a fundamental difference between graffiti in the U.S. and graffiti elsewhere. The New York founders, in particular, were very aware of the fact that they were writing in a different atmosphere when they were off of their home streets. In New York, they were writing for reasons of rebellion and recognition. While graffiti was still, for the most part, illegal in the United States, graffiti artists who knew what it was like to bomb a train or to transform a wall in the middle of the night felt disconnected from their roots when doing gallery pieces. Artist Omar commented that "graffiti in Europe started with more acceptability that it did here...when I'm bombing a train, I'm going to go in and get out. It's not like over there where I can set up a ladder and be there all day." Due to the underground, rogue nature of their art, international fame was more than some writers had ever dreamed of. Artists Keith Haring and Jean-Michel Basquiat started out writing graffiti on New York City streets and subways and quickly became international superstars in the art world. Though their work had an urban styling to it, unlike other graffiti artists, Haring and Basquiat did not use tags as the centerpieces of their artwork. Because they adapted their styles to fit the tastes of art critics and collectors, their work thrived in a gallery setting where they could experiment with characters and images. The difference between writers like Haring and Basquiat and the kings of New York's trains was that the former two were artists in the traditional sense-they played by the rules of the art world in order to make a name for themselves. Graffiti artists refused to play by the rules. They considered themselves artists but, for them, there was much more to their work than doing what the art critics wanted so it could be hung in a gallery. Graffiti artists, as well as their works, belonged on the city streets.
For a while, graffiti artists were completely swept up and carried away by the excitement of being accepted into the art world and the tremendous amount of attention that they were getting. They were eager to show off their talent and their works to the rest of the world. They had everything they needed at their fingertips, no one to hassle them, and a willing audience-initially writing with a respectable standing and in an art-only atmosphere had no influence on their work. When the thrill of their newfound fame began to wear off, however, writers realized that society was forcing them to make a choice between writing graffiti and creating acceptable artwork.
Collectors marketed graffiti by selling the artists themselves-focusing on their ghetto backgrounds and the novelty of "urban art." The art world had fun with the rebellious, self-promoting attitude-it was something different and trendy. Once the art critics began to seriously critique the works of graffiti artists, to subject them to rigorous scrutiny and the standards governing traditional artwork, these pieces began to lose credibility. Underneath all of the hype, graffiti was considered rough and esthetically low-grade. Though strong in terms of color use, graffiti artists were "understandably weak in terms of structure; at best, their canvases tend to look like segments of something bigger rather than a whole compositions. They really have trouble with small pictures..." (Schjeldahl 1973:25). Finding little intrinsic value to the pieces, art dealers marketed graffiti art as novelty rather than art. Works were sold based on artists' background-minority criminals attempting to escape their poverty through an illegal and hazardous activity (Powers 1996). People involved with the art community-especially art critics-were ultimately unable to appreciate the true meaning of the works because they were unfamiliar with the way that graffiti artists thought. Thus, graffiti art, in its pure, original form was unable to exist within the gallery space. When the novelty wore off, graffiti artists were forced to either adapt to the art world or to return to the streets. In order to survive in the art world, graffiti needed to be critically refined.
Writers who joined organizations such as U.G.A. gave up writing on the streets and their motivation for writing graffiti. Instead, they evolved themselves as artists under the influences of dealers, collectors, and other artists. The public saw that their work became "in some ways more complex, more subtle, and at the same time more appealing to collectors in the fast-moving art world." Other graffiti artists saw that their one-time colleagues had lost sight of their original public. They began using the spraycan in their work as a tool only, a sign that they had severed the ties between themselves and the streets (Chalfant 1984:8). Serious graffiti writers were appalled by the adulteration of their original art form. Collectors wanted pieces full of movement and excitement; they wanted the graffiti that captured the thrill of writing on the trains. What they failed to realize, however, was that the only way to get what they wanted was to do the real thing. To the graffiti artists, collectors wanted "tame tiger. Lame tigers.... but nothing compares to a train hit. Nothing" (Light 1999:39). The only way to write graffiti was to do it on the trains or in the streets; anywhere else it lost its thrill and the writers lost their motivation. Rather than conform to the limitations of a gallery space, many writers chose to part ways with the art world and to focus their energy solely on the trains.
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects
The War on the TrainsThe only problem was that their beloved canvases were slowly but surely being taken away from them. While some writers were busy experimenting with graffiti in the art world, writers who remained true to subway graffiti were fighting a war with the Transit Authority. The removal of subway graffiti was costing the MTA an extraordinary amount of time and money. As graffiti artists became more persistent and more inventive, the penalties for writing on the trains increased. But greater fines, in addition to a step-up in security measures, failed to deter the writers. In fact, this only made writing more challenging and, thus, more alluring to graffiti artists. While the galleries in Soho were marketing graffiti as Pop Art, many New Yorkers were not enjoying their graffiti experiences. Refusing to "relax and enjoy the visual bonus that comes these days with the purchase of a subway token," (Schjeldahl 1973:25) the press and the public began putting pressure on Mayor John Lindsay and his administration to put an end to what they considered vandalism.
When graffiti exploded in New York City in the early 1970s, Mayor Lindsay was already busy dealing with the fact that the city was practically bankrupt. Regulating the graffiti problem was originally very low on his priority list. "Teenagers from all parts of the city, all races and religions and all economic classes" were writing, and sometimes they were getting caught. Most kids got a "slap-on-the-wrist," but "anyone older than sixteen...would get a summons"(NYT 1971:37). Graffiti was not considered a major crime by the city's laws, but it was a violation of Transit Authority rules. The use of permanent markers and spraypaint made graffiti difficult to deal with. Rough surfaces needed to be painted over and new high-powered cleaners were needed for the subways-an estimated cost of $300,000 to the Transit Authority in only a year (NYT 1971:37).
By 1972, the marker and paint tags had spread "to steel and tile walls, to route maps in cars, to station ceilings and to trackside walls reachable only through subway car windows or by standing between cars on a stopped train" (Prial 1972:39+). Not only was there more graffiti, but it was also becoming more difficult to remove. Not only was graffiti removal becoming more costly for the Transit Authority, but every station porter also spent at least an hour a day removing graffiti. The lenient city policy toward graffiti was also having a heavy toll on the amount of time police spent dealing with graffiti writers. Current policy required that youthful offenders-which were the majority of graffiti writers-be given "youth referral cards. This means that the police send someone around to talk to the young scrawler's parents" (Prial 1972:39+). The amount of cards being given out was astounding-1,562 offenders were apprehended in 1972 for defacement and 282 in only the first two months of 1973 (Schumach 1973:). Simultaneously, graffiti "pieces" had started to appear on the subway trains. Frank T. Berry, the Transit Authority's executive officer for operations and maintenance stated that, "more and more large-scale defacements have been appearing in the past four or five months while 'quick dab' graffiti seems to have reached a 'saturation level' (NYT 1973:L39). At this point, the graffiti problem was becoming too big for the Transit Authority and the police to handle on their own.
Media coverage of the graffiti problem captured the public's attention. The outrage of New York City residents combined with pressure from the Transit Authority and police forced Mayor Lindsay to consider anti-graffiti policies. "Pieces" were considered safety hazards because they sometimes covered the windows, blocking the vision of passengers getting on and off the trains. Additionally, the amount of money and man-hours being spent on graffiti removal demanded immediate action on the part of city officials. Despite the city's tight financial situation, Mayor Lindsay released a report stating that the now estimated $10-million a year spent on graffiti removal "would only keep graffiti from going beyond fifty per cent of the surfaces susceptible to it. To cut the graffiti to ten per cent of available surface would require $2.4-million." The additional funds would be used for new "technological, enforcement, marketing, and security techniques, as well as educational and community programs." He suggested collaborative programs with schools through which youths could satisfy their urge to beautify the city by adopting subway platforms and painting under guidance (Schumach 1973:). The main incentive for Mayor Lindsay's campaign was that any money spent on anti-graffiti tactics would be made up for by reduction of graffiti removal expenses.
Working together with local, state, and national agencies and organizations, New York City officials worked tirelessly to curtail the city's graffiti epidemic. In 1977, the National Paint and Coatings Association developed a solution known to graffiti writers as "The Buff"(Powers 1996). While "The Buff" was destroying pieces on the trains, the police were busy breaking up writers' corners. As communication between writers began to break down, crews were disbanded, and the hierarchy of the graffiti subculture disappeared. Steven L. Isenberg, Mayor Lindsay's chief of staff, stated that, "The most important notion to be discredited publicly is that graffiti vandalism and defacement of property can be cloaked with the justification or excuse that it is an acceptable form of pop art" (Schumach 1973). Before long the galleries stopped recruiting artists from the streets. As anti-graffiti programs took hold, graffiti writers were forced to return their art to the underground.
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects
The Writing on the WallAs early as 1984, the graffiti wildfire was beginning to die down. "Graf wasn't cool to the kids coming up then.... it wasn't brand-new rebellion anymore, graf was status quo" (Light 1999:40). Writers whose names had been seen anywhere and everywhere in the 70s practically disappeared in the 80s. Many had simply given up a teenage passion and become preoccupied with families and jobs. Others were forced to stop-kids who lived rough lives finally ended up dead or behind bars. There were survivors, though. Die-hards such as Blade, Lee, Seen, Duster, Daze, Futera, Dondi, Crash, and Zephyr exhibited their works in Soho and continued to blaze their names across subway trains. Sensing danger when the music industry trend changed in favor of heavy metal, graffiti artists divorced themselves from Hip-Hop. By then, graffiti and Hip-Hop had become "two different animals, neither dependent on the other for relevance or survival." Though the fever picked up in 1986, the New York founders knew that the Train Dayz were numbered (Light 1999:39-40).
Throughout the 80s, the MTA began replacing its subway lines with new, stainless steel trains. In order to protect these shiny new treasures from graffiti artists, they were painted white with "graffiti proof" paint. Initially, the great white beasts proved more enticing to writers and were painted almost as quickly as they appeared. In response, the MTA tightened up its security, lined the yards with barbed wire, and received permission from the mayor to protect the trains with vicious guard dogs. With the white paint and the new security measures, the city of New York had finally found a combination that worked. "By 1988, subway graffiti was on its last legs." The MTA had figure out that "if you buff and scrub one line at a time-as opposed to trying to monitor and control twenty something yards at once-you can win the war." In May of 1989, the last bombed train graced the tracks of New York's subway system. The Train Dayz, the so-called "golden era" of New York subway graffiti, were over. Writing on the trains had become too risky for the new generation of graffiti artists. Even if a writer did manage to get his name up on a train, the MTA would never let it be seen in public (Light 1999:40-41). Though the subway lines were the canvases of choice for graffiti artists, it was not their only option. When getting to the trains meant more trouble than it was worth, writers retaliated by making a canvas of the city itself.
With the media focusing the world's attention on subway graffiti, it was nearly forgotten that graffiti got its start on the city walls. Graffiti writers who were serious about their art form used the trains because they were highly visible, they gained a large audience, and they were a way to communicate "art" with writers throughout the city (Chalfant 1984:8). Even during the Train Dayz, there were still pieces being done on the walls. Some writers used the walls as practice or as convenient places to keep their names up. When the MTA began using the "buff," furious writers posted ridiculous amounts of tags and pieces throughout the city-a defiant demonstration of writers' resilience (Light 1999:41). Though nothing compared to writing on the trains, the walls offered a convenient alternative.
Writers returning from the subways to the streets found graffiti culture alive and thriving on the walls. While many graffiti artists had been bombing trains and trying their hands at gallery art, other writers chose to refine their styles on the walls and ball courts in their neighborhoods. Tags evolved into wall murals that were similar to the pieces being done on the trains. If anything, wall murals were more detailed, more stylish, and more carefully executed than the pieces on the trains, simply because wall artists had more time to do their pieces and less hazards to worry about. In the minds of writers and other people involved in the urban subculture, graffiti was a means of "beautifying" dirty, dilapidated neighborhoods and ghettos. Often local merchant would ask artists to do murals on store walls or riot gates with the dual purpose of brightening up the buildings and providing an eye-catching advertisement for their businesses. Arguably, wall graffiti was in a more acceptable position in society; because of its ability to, literally, "transform" a neighborhood overnight, wall graffiti was seen more as murals, or art, than outright vandalism.
One of the pioneers of writing on the walls was Lee Quinones. In 1978, after dominating the subways for five years, he became dissatisfied with just doing "top-to-bottom whole cars" and turned to the walls to satisfy his creative urges. By night, he transformed his Brooklyn neighborhood into "one of the city's most spectacular exhibits of public art....he created a series of unforgettable monumental murals on handball courts: Howard the Duck emerging from a trashcan, the guardian lion in the catacombs, the Silver Surfer 'hanging ten' in some intergalactic Waikiki..." (Chalfant 1984:7). Lee saw the full potential of the walls and handball courts in his neighborhood. He exploited them and used every surface comprehensively. Already a recognized King of the subways, Lee was the first graffiti writer to use walls to create major works of art, other than using them merely as a means to get his name up.
Writers like Lee set the tone for serious graffiti artists worldwide. In one of his pieces, Lee once wrote, "Graffiti is A Art and if Art is A Crime, let God Forgive *ALL*" (Chalfant 1984:14). With the development of the writing on the walls, it was finally understood that graffiti was not just something for the trains. Potential writers everywhere tuned in to the New York graffiti world and pieces and murals began to appear on the streets, playgrounds, ball courts, and underpasses of cities with or without subways of their own. As subway graffiti slowly died down in New York City, the practice of writing on the walls grew everywhere else. Outside of New York, writers focused their art on the walls. This created fundamental, stylistic differences between writers in other cities and New York writers who, for the most part, developed their styles on the side of the trains. "...To rock on a train, a piece needs movement.... When I see pieces on American trains, they look like they're meant to be there, they just go with the train. Walls don't go anywhere, so for a wall you could do anything" (Shame 181, London qtd. Chalfant 1984:9). When New York writers could no longer write on the trains, they adapted their fluid, eye-catching styles to the walls.
Writing on the walls was much less difficult than writing on the trains. New York style masters rocked on the sides of the trains-on the walls, however, they created pieces that were nothing short of breathtaking. Nowhere else did graffiti have the history that it did in New York. Nowhere else did writers become Kings by blazing their names on trains that carried their names throughout the city. No where else was graffiti a living, breathing art form that refused to be crushed despite relentless attacks by city officials. Since the time of 'Taki 183', New York graffiti has evolved and adapted itself to changing styles and changing times. Others have followed in its wake and copied its style, but nothing compares to New York City graffiti. It has uniqueness in style, presentation, and motivation that is still evident on the city walls today.
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects
Chapter 3
Graffiti Today
What is Graffiti?
Graffiti. Term applied to an arrangement of institutionally illicit marks in which there has been an attempt to establish some sort of coherent composition; such marks are made by an individual or individuals (not generally professional artists) on a wall or other surface that is usually visually accessible to the public. The term 'graffiti' derives from the Greek graphein ('to write'). Graffiti (sing. graffito) or SGRAFFITO, meaning a drawing or scribbling on a flat surface, originally referred to those marks found on ancient Roman architecture.
Dictionary of ArtThe earliest know writing by a human being was done on a wall. Cave paintings were a visible, public form of communication for our earliest ancestors. Throughout the history of the human race, there has been a tradition of writing on walls. As long as there have been people with something to say, some of them have helped themselves to the nearest available surface-usually a wall-and written it down. In an article in Natural History, Roger L. Welsch somewhat satirically wrote:
I'm willing to bet that some of the cave decorations were admired by contemporary visitors, and others were considered clumsy mutilations. Some were simple declarations of tribal and individual existence-"We were here," "I was here." Some were probably the product of too much time and leftover paint. And I'll bet that, people still being pretty much people, some of those designs and markings say something like, "Ask God in prayer and She will answer." Or "Neanderthals Rule." Or "Og loves Glom." Or "Cro-Magnons Go Home"(1993:30).
The truth is that, even in the ruins of ancient cities of Rome and Pompeii, graffiti have been found and translated. Not surprisingly, they revealed simple statements of personal achievement or whereabouts not uncommon from what one might expect to see written inside a bathroom stall. In general, graffiti are the products of a desire to make a personal statement on public property. What people choose to make statements about and how they choose to do it results in the different forms of graffiti currently used by writers around the world.
An underlying motive for all forms of modern graffiti is a desire for public recognition. In an environment where individuals feel as though they are overlooked or they have no "voice," writing graffiti is a way to make oneself known to or heard by everyone else. A prime example of this need to identify oneself to the world is seen in New York's graffiti explosion. In this instance, the participants were primarily inner-city teens. As teenagers, these kids were already at point in their lives where they were struggling to establish their places in an adult world-adolescence. In addition, most of these teens were minorities, living in the slums and ghettos of the Bronx and Brooklyn. Overwhelmed by the crowded, busy city, these kids felt a need to make their mark. Through graffiti, inner-city teens felt that they had some power or control in their rapidly moving world around them. What made New York City graffiti different from the usual 'I was here' or 'john + kate' type graffiti was that it made an artistic statement in addition to being self-promoting.
In order to distinguish New York style-or 'Hip-Hop'-graffiti from other forms of graffiti, it is necessary to define what other forms there are. The most familiar type of graffiti is the modest, simple scribble done by individuals who probably do not consider themselves writers. Rather, they are merely individuals with either a little too much time on their hands or a little too much to say. This reference is to the casual statements and aphorisms that grace the surfaces of desktops, bathrooms stall doors, and other public places where people have the opportunity to sit and think for a while. The insistent urge to make one's mark is adequately demonstrated by the persistence of those who find themselves without a writing implement at the time of their inspiration. 'I WUZ HERE,' 'M.D. + G.F.,' and similar graffiti have been carved into the wood of countless trees, park benches, and even Plexiglas windows. So technically, anyone can write graffiti. However, when one mentions the word "graffiti," these occasional, haphazard mark-ups and signatures are not usually what come to mind.
People tend to categorize all graffiti in terms of the graffiti that they are most familiar with. "Because little accurate information has been available about the production of most graffiti today, people have tended to frame their interpretations of all graffiti within more familiar contexts: as hooliganism, vandalism, and malicious mischief; as lashing out at society; as antisocial; as alienation; as marking territory; and so on" (Phillips 1996:17). One prevalent type of graffiti that many people are familiar with is gang-related graffiti. Gang graffiti is usually, though not always, monochrome. Tags, gang names, and gang symbols are done in either spray paint or marker, depending on the size and the surface. "Gang members use graffiti to indicate group membership, to distinguish between enemies and allies, and, most generally, to mark boundaries that are both territorial and ideological" (Turner 1996:270). According to anthropologist Susan Phillips' book Wallbangin', gang graffiti is a complex system of communication not intended for anyone outside the gang community.
By studying graffiti in Los Angeles, a city with more gangs than anywhere else in the world, Susan Phillips 1996:is well qualified to dismiss the common misconception that all graffiti is gang-related. She explains that, in Los Angeles, "people continue to confuse hip-hop [New York-style] tagging with gang graffiti because of the prevalence of gang writing on city walls throughout the years" (Phillips 1996:17). Graffiti allows a gang to create a neighborhood presence without being physically seen, to maintain connections among members without physical contact. The messages are primarily for gang members, rivals, and allies. The language itself is highly symbolic and, thus, resistant to interpretation by "outsiders."
The graffiti language of the Los Angeles Chicano gangs is divided into four main types of messages: though different in their context, "hit ups" and "roll calls" are both positive statements pertaining to gang membership, "challenges" are gang dialogs of writing and crossing out that correspond to power struggles, and "RIPs" are memorial writings done for deceased gang members. Of the four, "hitting up" or "striking" is the most important Chicano gang graffiti. Superficially, a simple writing of a gang name, the name of the writer, and a few of the writer's closest friends appears to do nothing more than claim gang territory. These "hit-ups", however, show a writer's support for the neighborhood, delineate the position of the neighborhood in relation with other gangs in the system, symbolize the gang's presence in the neighborhood, and help to gain respect and reputation for the gang (Phillips 1996:118-120). Graffiti show individual writers' pride in their gangs as well as the gangs' pride in their neighborhoods. "You can get to know people even if you never meet them-a name on a wall represents an individual just as a gang name represents the gang as a specific entity..."(Phillips 1996:121). Graffiti designates where individuals can be found. "Hit-up" messages are supplemented with "roll calls"-written lists of who does and does not belong to the gang. These lists indicate individual gang membership as well as the gang's geographic position within the city (Phillip 143-147).
The main goal of these messages is the communication of power and prestige. Gang-graffiti differs from New York style graffiti in both its message and the intent of its production. These differences are noticeably reflected in its appearance. Writers of gang graffiti are interested in enhancing their gang's reputation. Thus, the focus of their graffiti is on bold, clear statements that symbolize power rather than style and color. "Gang members use what historians call 'hierarchical scale.' That is, they make the most important thing the biggest...this usually means that the gang name or initials are larger than clique names or individual nicknames.... The gang name is usually the most elaborate" (Phillips 1996:130). In a "hit-up" with a list of names, the name of the author usually appears on top. In stark contrast with New York-style graffiti-where writers are in constant competition for greater visibility, regardless of their artistic skill-most gang graffiti appears in back alleys and gang hangouts, such as local parks. Main streets "often house landmark compositions that are larger in size, more complex, and more carefully rendered. This more visible placement enables writers to direct their messages toward the local gang community of rivals as well as allies" (Phillips 1996:134). These spots are reserved for the best writers, who take the time and have the skill to represent their gangs well.
Though gang graffiti is characterized by its simple presentation, its message is primarily symbolic in nature. Political graffiti, on the other hand, prioritizes a clear, straightforward presentation because of the complexity and variability of its messages. Political graffiti is a major type of graffiti commonly identified around the world. In keeping with the traditional role of providing a voice for those who feel that they have none, graffiti is the perfect medium for common people to publicly voice their political opinions. Political graffiti allows individuals or groups to make public political statements while affording them a necessary degree of anonymity. In countries where people are oppressed by their governments, speaking out politically is not tolerated. Through graffiti, repressed statements and sentiments can be seen while the identity of the writers remains unknown to their enemies.
A prime example of political graffiti is the graffiti of the Palestinian Intifada in 1996. Under Israeli occupation, graffiti provided a means of communication for people and political groups within the community. "Taking to the walls was a sort of last-ditch effort to speak and be heard.... Written under a highly elaborated apparatus of censorship, graffiti were a form of expression that recorded domination and simultaneously intervened in it... graffiti linked Palestinians under occupation, overcoming discontinuity in communication" (Peteet 1996:142). Through graffiti, people were kept aware of the actions and support of various political groups. It served to unify the people when the Israelis did everything under their power separate and break them down.
The presence of the graffiti itself was a sign of resistance and defiance. "The writing on the walls challenged Israeli claims to surveillance, constitution a glaring index of the Israeli State's inability to observe and control everyplace.... Graffiti were the silent narrative accompanying acts of resistance yet were themselves an act of resistance.... They made dramatically visible and public the action, writing without censorship, deemed illegal by the occupying forces" (Peteet 1996:143). The graffiti that would appear on the walls every night and would be blacked-out by soldiers in the afternoon was a visible sign of the power struggle taking place between the two opposing groups. Israeli denial of freedom of speech was intended to isolate individuals within their own community. Through graffiti, the people were able to keep up communication by sending information, messages of hope and defiance to each other. Israelis did not see the writing on the wall for its content; they saw it as a blatant sign of a unified resistance. From day to day, the amount of graffiti on the walls was a telltale sign of the level of the people's discontent.
Writing political graffiti meant taking an extreme risk. Not only was it illegal, as is most graffiti, but it was often punished by death. In countries such as Palestine, the act of writing graffiti became "a sort of rite of passage into adulthood and the underground resistance movement" (Peteet 1996:144). The writers were often young boys and teens who nightly risked their lives to put their messages up in the most public they could find. Though most graffiti was anonymous except for the name of symbol of the political organization, it was a visible sign of the bravery of these young people as they took their place in the world.
Though political groups used graffiti to relay messages to their people and oppressors, not all of these messages agreed with each other. Much like gang graffiti, political graffiti was often used to indicate group territory. "Readers knew which areas were under whose control simply by the sheer density of graffiti and their signatures" (Peteet 1996:149). Graffiti was a silent language with an enormous capacity to communicate a great deal of information with a few hurried sprays of paint.
By 1990, however, the graffiti of the Intifada was attracting attention of a slightly different kind. Alongside the political graffiti, writers had began to put up colorful was murals (Peteet 1996:147). These murals brought photographers, journalists, and graffiti aficionados from around the world to Palestine, just to observe and document the graffiti. Though this sudden interest helped to make the Intifada an extremely well documented political uprising, their cause was not what sparked the media frenzy. As political graffiti writers in Palestine made their messages bolder and more colorful, they ventured by accident into an arena of graffiti writing that the press found much more interesting-graffiti art.
Graffiti art, or New York-style graffiti, is a cultural phenomenon that originated on the sides of the New York City subways. It became internationally famous in part by its association with Hip-Hop, a rap-style music trend popular in the '80s. As an art form, graffiti has its core in rebellion, self-determination, and raw emotion; it is "an expression for the people" (Light 1999:37). Similar to its role in the Intifada, graffiti in New York City was developed as a way for teens to communicate with each other and to assert themselves in their city world. Today, New York graffiti artists continue to use their artwork as a means of communication in their underground world. Sometimes writers incorporate political issues that they feel strongly about into their pieces or murals but, for the most part, graffiti art is purely aesthetic. In other instances, graffiti artists will use their works to lay claim to a particular wall or to establish their authority in the New York graffiti world, similar to how gangs use graffiti. However, it is important to distinguish between the two. The belief that all graffiti is gang graffiti is probably the number one misconception that graffiti artists have to deal with when attempting to justify their art.
It is possible that much of the public's objection to graffiti can be attributed to the mistaken association of graffiti art with violence. In places such as Philadelphia, citizens and the anti-graffiti task force argue that the characters sometimes used in graffiti are violent in nature. Artist Parish comments that, "I don't see anything violent about the way it's on there. I could see if you were drawing a bunch of people killing one another, but nobody draws anything like that" (Chalfant 1984:12). The characters most often portrayed by graffiti artists are cartoons or comic book characters-acceptably seen by millions of kids every day. The other contributing factor to this misconception is that people associate all graffiti as with a gang activity. Graffiti art and gang graffiti differ in style, in message, and in intent of the writers. During the Train Dayz, graffiti artists would sometimes get "hired" by gangs who wanted to assert their authority or mark their territory (Powers 1996). While percentages of gang graffiti vs. graffiti art differ in major cities, very little of the graffiti in New York City is gang-related. Graffiti artists often do affiliate themselves with larger groups, but they are generally not gang members-"crews" and "gangs" are not interchangeable terms.
Though writing graffiti art is competitive, it is not inherently violent. "Founding artists like Blade contend that violence became an issue only in the '80's.... you had to go over (the next cat) to get over. In turn, crazy things-violent, evil, sadistic things-have gone down in the yards, in the lay-ups, in the streets" (Light 1999:38). Violence during the Train Dayz was the result of a proliferation of artists with different mindsets and backgrounds competing for the same space. Arrogant white kids from uptown and tough, equally arrogant Latinos and blacks from downtown and the Bronx misunderstood and resented each other. Style wars on the trains led to brawls when kids from different neighborhoods played by the rules of the streets.
When the Train Dayz died in 1989, so did the fierce competition that became physical. The focus of graffiti art is not so much about having one's name appear all over the city as it is about creating pieces that overwhelm the competition in style, color, and creativity. Writers refrain themselves to quarreling on the walls by crossing each other out. Famous graffiti artists Bill Blast explained that, "it hurts when someone goes over my piece.... That's why I painted over them-Why can't some people respect art?" (Chalfant 1984:20-21). Graffiti artists put a lot of time, effort, and care into their pieces-when someone else comes along and simply writes over a work, the artist becomes understandably upset. Additionally, the illegality of graffiti makes a good place to write hard to come by. Writers are forced to compete for the same, limited wall space with the sad realization that, even if they do manage to get a piece up, its time on the wall will probably be short lived. It will not be long before it is covered over by city "beautification" or by other artists looking for a place to paint. For this reason, most serious graffiti artists would love nothing more than the creation of legal graffiti walls. The only problem is that, in order to get these walls, graffiti artists have to convince city officials that they are both necessary and worthwhile.
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects
Defining the Boundaries of Graffiti Art"Art" is not necessarily defined by its ability to be displayed in a gallery. However, because graffiti is, in its most basic form, a type of painting, the art community expects graffiti artists to be able to adapt their art form for gallery display. The problem with graffiti is that it cannot exist within the confines of the gallery space and still maintain its integrity. As an art form, graffiti started and grew on the walls and trains of New York City. In the 1970's the art world attempted to adopt this new art form and to create a gallery environment where graffiti would grow and flourish off of the streets. For the most part, the attempt was a failure. Pieces done by graffiti artists were devoid of their original meaning when they were removed from the streets "because there was no adequate discourse to discuss the graffiti works in terms of its subculture or aesthetics. Within the subway graffiti subculture, there were strict rules and delineations that defined the quality of the works that would not correspond to the definitions of the art community" (Powers 1996). Pieces were meant to stand in stark contrast with the drab, urban landscape around them, to reflect the snaking movements of the trains along their tracks.
In addition, New York City youth created these works in order to communicate with each other. "As a social practice, reading graffiti is grounded in position and experience-in the situatedness of a readership in a power structure and the graffiti writer's place in it, and the implications of his product for that structure" (Peteet 1996:151). In the galleries, pieces lost their purpose. A piece in a gallery was useless for communication because very few other writers saw it. "The adoption of subway graffiti into the art community failed to bring with it the sociological and psychological conditions which originally motivated the youths" (Powers 1996). Other than showing off their skills to the art world, graffiti artists could communicate very little through their gallery pieces. Though the art collectors were enthralled with the colors and styles, the art world was so far removed from the New York City youth subculture that it was impossible to translate the meaning of the pieces. In essence, the words of the artists were falling on deaf ears. Because the history and meaning of graffiti art escaped the understanding of the art world so, too, did its validity as an art form.
Since their flirtation with the art world in the 1970's, some graffiti artists have continued to make gallery-style art in addition to doing traditional pieces throughout the city. Gallery-style graffiti is necessarily different than traditional graffiti-art. In order to create acceptable, appreciable works for the art world, graffiti artists are forced to conform to some artistic conventions. Gallery graffiti has been done on canvas, metal, wood, and other surfaces. In addition, artists do not limit themselves to spraypaint as the sole medium of their creations. A variety of media can be used-with or without spraypaint. One example is veteran NYC graf artist Omar, who has a unique way of incorporating graffiti into his gallery pieces. He did a recent series of works by photocopying photographs of street or train graffiti, and then collaging these photocopies on to painted boards. Another of his pieces is a large collage on canvas made of tag "stickers" from various graffiti artists. These stickers are nothing more than nametags, office labels, or postal service labels on which graffiti artists write their tags. This is an easier alternative to writing marker tags on the street. By collecting these sticker tags and using them as a collage on canvas, Omar has found an interesting and traditionally acceptable way of displaying graffiti as gallery art.
Though artists such as Omar do works for galleries, they still continue to do pieces on the streets. Serious graffiti artists are writers who firmly believe in their works and the fact that they belong on city walls and other surfaces for public display. Their passion lies in creating these magnificent public pieces-"real" graffiti. So why create the gallery works? According to Omar, the motivation to do gallery work is primarily financial: "Graffiti is cool and all, but it doesn't pay the bills." With large pieces taking an average of twenty to thirty cans of spraypaint, graffiti can become an expensive hobby. The advantage of doing gallery works is twofold: first, it gives graffiti artists the opportunity to exercise their artistic talent and creativity and second, it provides them with a (supplemental) source of income. Controversy arises, however, when graffiti artists are paid to do outdoor graffiti pieces.
On occasion, graffiti artists will be asked to paint traditional graffiti pieces and will be paid for their work. An example of a so-called "commissioned piece" is an advertisement on a wall or storefront for a local business. Though the opportunity to do a commissioned piece is rare, many graffiti artists argue about the validity of these works, stating that, because the pieces are legal and paid for, they cannot be considered true graffiti. The point is that being paid for what other graffiti artists do for free is a violation of the spirit and rules of New York-style graffiti. "Graffiti writing is about the ability to represent oneself to one's pleasure-on a grand or small scale, quickly or slowly, cheaply or costly. Whatever the specific goals, one accomplishes said task without either paying (except perhaps for supplies) or being paid for the privilege" (Phillips 1996:30). Graffiti was never about money-it was about recognition and risk-taking. Style Wars shows how artist Lee, famous for his pieces on the walls and the trains, was reluctant to join fellow artists doing commissioned pieces. In the film, Lee explains that, "You got to WRITE man... you got to do the action, man, you know? You got to go out there, rack up... you got to go out and paint and be called an outlaw at the same time." When given a chance to do a commissioned piece, most graffiti artists are appreciative of the recognition and money. However, these works lack the spontaneity and freedom of expression that artists crave.
Striking examples of this craving for free expression are the murals that some graffiti artists do in their neighborhoods. These murals often portray scenes of people or landscapes and bear a direct similarity to traditional pictorial art. In contrast with graffiti, murals are fundamentally image-based, while graffiti is word-based. Graffiti "has its roots in literacy. It implies the presence of a written language. As a medium that combines language and art, graffiti is indeed an art of the word" (Phillips 1999:40). Graffiti artists will choose to do murals as a "change of pace" from tagging or piecing, even as a means of beautifying and paying tribute to the people or ethnic traditions of their neighborhoods (Cockcroft 33-35). Regardless of their legality, murals are often considered more "legitimate" than graffiti. Most neighborhood murals are done by community organizations or city-endorsed graffiti abatement programs (Phillips 1999:40). For this reason, graffiti artists do few murals; rather most illegal murals are done by people who are most adequately called "street artists."
Like graffiti artists, street artists feel the need to express themselves publicly, using the city streets as their medium. Unlike graffiti artists, street artists are primarily interested in gaining recognition for their art or for a message that they are trying to get across through their art. In essence, they use the city itself as a gallery to display their works and reach a broader audience. New York City has an abundance of street art. Walking down a city street, one could encounter an eight and a half by eleven piece of paper with a philosophical or, in some cases, not so philosophical message stuck to the side of a building; on the corner, a stencil of a man's face on the fire hydrant.
While street art is done illegally, the artists are not part of the graffiti subculture. James de la Vega, a well-known New York City street artist, uses a variety of different media in his work. He literally enjoys writing on the street-his "quotes", appear on the sidewalk in chalk or tape throughout most of Manhattan. These "quotes" are short statements or aphorisms, signed simply "de la Vega", and intended to give people something to think about. He also does drawings or stenciled images in chalk and has a number of murals on walls in Spanish Harlem. Though his works are gradually his works are worn away by weather and passing foot-traffic, De la Vega's works are intended to be impermanent. The fact that his messages wear and fade away is part of his overall artistic concept-he hopes that the messages of his works remain in the minds of those who see them, despite the fact that the works themselves disappear. De la Vega is apparently very successful in this respect. While I was visiting his studio, an elderly neighborhood woman stopped by to tell him how much she admired his work. "I see your work all the time," she remarked. "It's so good to finally meet you. Your work is wonderful; it means a lot to people."
As demonstrated by the reaction of this woman, street art is generally considered more acceptable than graffiti, despite their common illegality. De la Vega says that the only time that he has been in trouble for his artwork has been when he stenciled on the sidewalk with acrylic paint. Omar recently experienced this double standard with some of his new graffiti pieces. Recently, he has started stenciling large pieces of plywood to look like "HELLO" nametags and then signing his tag on the plywood. In addition to being something creative and different, this is a quick and easy way of putting up his tag-a few shots with a screw gun and the tag is up. When he goes back to look for them, however, he often finds that his "HELLOs" are missing. The reason: people take them down and take them home. "Suddenly it's not graffiti anymore," Omar puzzled. "It's cool." His new tags look more like pieces of street art than graffiti, so people have started "collecting" them. Though graffiti and street artists themselves are very clear about the differences between their work, the lines between the two often seem blurred to other people. For the most part, graffiti is identified as writing (usually with spraypaint or permanent marker) on a wall or other public surface. It gets confusing when, all of the sudden, graffiti artists are putting other things up on walls and street artists are writing things on things on the sidewalks.
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects
Support and Opposition in the War on GraffitiAs graffiti artists in the United States struggle to establish themselves, they wage a constant war with city officials and the public. "Public attitudes toward graffiti tend to fluctuate between indifference and intolerance. On a national level, the criminal justice system has yet to adopt a uniform response to graffiti..."(Grant 1996). Currently, graffiti is dealt with on both community and city-side levels. Every year, enormous sums of money are spent on graffiti removal. The primary reason for public objection to graffiti is that it is vandalism. Regardless of where graffiti appears, chances are that the surface belongs to someone. Most often that "someone" does not want graffiti on his property-not only does she think it looks bad, but it cost her money to remove it.
The other primary social concern about graffiti is that it destroys neighborhoods, creating areas where crime can flourish. A recent FBI report on the ills of graffiti and community anti-graffiti campaigns argues that graffiti, when left unaddressed, leads to more serious crimes. While it is true that "the line separating gang graffiti and tagging has become blurred in recent years" the report goes on to state that "tagging often results in direct gang affiliation" and "most taggers hope to join gangs and use tagging as a way to gain the attention of gang members" (Grant 1996). If the term "gangs" in this report is referring to graffiti "crews", then it is also true that individual taggers hope to gain recognition through their writing and be invited to join a graffiti crew. However, the report ultimately fails to distinguish between gangs and graffiti crews. In doing so, it misrepresents graffiti artists as gang-caliber criminals.
This FBI report is a prime example of why New York-style graffiti artists are feared and persecuted. It describes "taggers" as people with a desire to be known, to create an identity for themselves and to communicate with each other. "Tagging" messages are described as resembling handwriting, but being difficult to read and consisting of letters and symbols invented by the authors. Based upon these descriptions, one would assume that the report is referencing New York-style graffiti. However, the reasons listed for graffiti writing are 1. To mark or claim territory, 2. To gain recognition with little fear of arrest, 3. To threaten or show disrespect to rival gangs or taggers, 4. To express themselves artistically, 5. To identify a specific gang, 6. To immortalize dead gang members. Considering the descriptions of gang graffiti and New York-style graffiti given previously, these reasons show blatant confusion between the two. This becomes a problem when the report states, "Tagging" is "an entry-level offense that can lead to more serious crimes, including burglary and assault" (Grant 1996). While gangs that write graffiti may be violent and known to commit serious crimes, literature on New York-style graffiti contradicts these alleged offenses. Susan Phillips, has done extensive research on both gang graffiti and New York-style graffiti, explains, "Crew members may act like gang members in that they are sometimes violent towards one another. But they are not driven by the context of protecting neighborhood space or themselves.... Their goals always relate to art.... Crews are about graffiti, plain and simple. Theirs are truly 'crimes of style' (Ferrell 1993)" (Phillips 1999:312). Readers of a report such as this are wrongly told that all graffiti leads to crime and violence when, in reality, there is only cause for concern in communities with gang-related graffiti.
Failure to distinguish between types of graffiti has important implications for cities and communities with graffiti "problems": how can they expect to fix the problem when if they fail to recognize what it really is? The San Diego-based National Coalition for Graffiti Removal states that only ten percent of graffiti is gang related (Black 1997). Graffiti varies greatly from city to city thus, it is necessary for each city to deal with its graffiti accordingly. In a city where the majority of graffiti is NY-style graffiti art and not gang-related, anti-graffiti programs that rally themselves around ridding the city of graffiti for fear of crime, violence, and gangs are unfounded. The sole justifiable objection to NY-style graffiti art, from an anti-graffiti standpoint, is that it is vandalism. The main concern of most anti-graffiti campaigns is that graffiti is a visible sign of decay that drives down real estate prices, causes "middle class flight to the suburbs," and erodes the city's tax base (Black 1997). Property owners and city officials do not recognize NY-style graffiti as art. Rather, they view it as destruction of property that costs them in both loss of property value and expenses for graffiti removal. Overall, their objection to graffiti is monetary.
Most anti-graffiti campaigns use a combination of community involvement as well as cooperation from the police, courts, and city officials to combat graffiti. The more successful programs have been ones with a broad base of support and relentless persistence. Though the persistence may pay off, it does not come without a cost. "In 1992 alone, the City of Los Angeles spent more than $15 million on graffiti eradication," not including volunteer time, "the estimated millions of dollars spent by private businesses," or the "$12 million spent by the Southern California Rapid Transit District" (Grant 1996). According to city officials, the cleanup and removal of graffiti is essential to city survival. Kevin Feeley, deputy mayor of communications for Philadelphia, reports, "Graffiti destroys neighborhoods. It is one of the most visible signs of a neighborhood in decline. It brings a sense of loss of control of a neighborhood. It drives people away, threatens business" (Black 1997). In response to this perceived threat to neighborhood vitality, many cities have adopted "zero tolerance zones," a costly program which gives top priority to remove graffiti within twenty-four hours of its reported appearance (Black 1997).
In some cities, the cost of graffiti removal is defrayed by donations of money and paint from the paint industry and also by grant money. Phoenix, Arizona is given $360,000 in federal community block grants as part of a $750,000 anti-graffiti budget specifically intended to remove graffiti from the brick walls enclosing the swimming pools of its 380,000 households (Black 1997). In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, "Operation Wipe-Out" has an anti-graffiti trust fund used to pay tipsters reporting graffiti sightings. Not all cities are as lucky. The National Graffiti Information Network estimates that it costs the public at least $4 billion per year for graffiti eradication. Money is spent on graffiti removal itself, as well as anti-graffiti hotlines, mobile graffiti removal units, and police investigators assigned solely to address graffiti. Areas with more graffiti tend to use more extreme and, consequently, more costly anti-graffiti methods. Orange County, California employs a forensic scientist specializing in handwriting analysis to identify chronic graffiti offenders (Grant 1996). Not only does New York City have an anti-graffiti hotline and citywide police squad devoted to fighting graffiti, but it also uses junior high students as undercover investigators to report stores selling spray paint and indelible markers (Black 1997).
New York City is one of many cities that consider the possession of spraycans and markers by minors a criminal offense. Additionally, these cities ban the sale of items used to write graffiti to minors and require businesses to keep spraypaint out of public reach; ideally in locked glass cases (Grant 1996). Depending on a city's anti-graffiti policy, graffiti can be anything from an annoyance to a financial hassle for business owners. Tery Levin, spokesman for the city of Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation, says that graffiti drives up the cost of business and drives businesses out. Small business owners have found that "if they left the graffiti up, the customers were reluctant to go in their stores. If they paint over it, and it gets re-tagged, it costs them money" (Black 1997). Cities not wanting or unable to deal with the cost of graffiti removal often make it the responsibility of the property owner. In Palestine, wall owners would rush to paint over the political Intifada graffiti in order "to save themselves a fine and the humiliation of erasure" forced by Israeli soldiers (Peteet 1996:143). Similarly, in the United States, some property owners are forced to pay a fine for the presence of graffiti in addition to the cost of its removal.
With all of this money being spent on graffiti removal, one would think that there has to be a better way to take care of the problem. Some cities have "taken a constructive approach to what they see as a problem, finding ways and places for writers to paint, handing out grants for supplies, and creating a climate of cooperation with town councils and community businesses" (Chalfant 1984:10). Because of the constructive approach taken, both city officials and graffiti writers are able to work to their advantage. These programs tend to be more successful in reducing problematic graffiti than anti-graffiti campaigns waging an all-out war on graffiti.
As one of the birthplaces of graffiti, the city of Philadelphia has been dealing with graffiti longer than any other city in the United States. It has tried and considered various ways to curb graffiti and, currently, maintains an anti-graffiti program that stands somewhere in between compromise and eradication. Philadelphia's "zero tolerance zones" encompass an 11.7 mile section of Broad Street, American Street, and northcentral and west Philadelphia, where "Graffiti Abatement Teams" respond to and eliminate graffiti within twenty-four hours. The paint industry supplies free paint to the city and neighborhood workers for their endeavor. So far, this approach has been extremely successful-eliminating graffiti along the Broad Street corridor within two months of its application (Black 1997). Areas within the "zero tolerance zone" are primarily high visibility walls prized by NY-style graffiti artists. Because of the time and effort it takes graffiti artists to do pieces, continuous removal within twenty-four hours tends to discourage use of those walls. Not only is it a waste a writer's money and time to write on such a spot, but the piece will be seen by few people, if any. From a graffiti writer's perspective, it's not worth the risk. As a result, most of the graffiti that appears in Philadelphia is gang-related. Because gang graffiti has territorial ties, writers are less likely to find other places to write. The same graffiti will continuously appear in the same spots, no matter how often it is painted over (Phillips 1999: 134). The disappearance of NY-style graffiti in Philadelphia can also be attributed to the novel efforts of its anti-graffiti task force.
In (date), the city of Philadelphia started its Mural Arts Program through the anti-graffiti task force. It encouraged graffiti artists complete amnesty if they would give up bombing, and enticed them with commissions to paint legal murals for the city (Chalfant 1984: 11). Criminologist Victoria Wilson, community relations director for Philapride, a non-profit community service group in Philadelphia, says that "older graffiti vandals tend to be 'piecers' who pride themselves on their artistic talents, while the younger are often 'taggers' whose graffiti is less structured and more hastily done" (Black 1997). "Piecers" are more likely to be steered into joining the Mural Arts Program because of their artistic enthusiasm. While many writers are enticed to take advantage of the program, "some have tended to play both sides of the fence, joining task-force mural projects by day and bombing the city with an alias by night" (Chalfant 1984:11). While the mural program provides an opportunity for graffiti artists to paint publicly, legally, and artistically, it fails to give them satisfactory freedom of expression.
The task force objected not only to illegal graffiti, but also to all graffiti. It forced local merchants to get rid of graffiti-style murals on their shops even though they had been done with the owners' permission. Even the Mural Art Program imposes censorship against graffiti-style works on artists who voluntarily choose to participate in the program. Artist Parish complains, "they want you to be like a robot, 'We will tell you what to do.' There's no way that's gonna work. Now, if they had gone about it in a different way and let writers do murals, even controlled murals...but they won't let anybody do that. They just want you to paint their silly-looking murals with paintbrushes, you know, like pictures of farms and grasslands.... No kid is gonna respect that. Writers are gonna go right over that" (Chalfant 1984:11). Victoria Wilson recognizes that the burden of compromise rests on the shoulders of anti-graffiti advocators; as long as they continue to create laws that restrict writers, "the vandals, their tools, and techniques continually evolve to circumvent the law" (Black 1997). The key is to give graffiti artists an alternative to vandalism that is, in essence, equivalent to what they are doing now. Perhaps one of the most successful anti-graffiti programs was the Greater London Council in England. Developed in conjunction with a politically astute young graffiti artist named Goldie, it helped London crews such as The Chrome Angelz and the IGA (Incredible Grove Artists) devote themselves to painting legally. "The GLC apparently saw in graffiti and Hip-Hop a chance to strengthen its links with the community of disaffected young people.... Money from the GLC helped put some of the dreams the kids had within their reach" (Chalfant 1996:10-11).
Most anti-graffiti programs serve only to alienate and anger graffiti artists, driving them to create more, not less, graffiti out of spite and a perceived challenge. A program such as the GLC attempts to establish a connection with young artists, through which a win-win situation can be established. The problem, alluded to earlier, is that authorities and the public are misinformed about graffiti and its artists and thus, fail to understand the situation in their own neighborhoods. Scholarly literature on graffiti, however, is difficult to find, even when one is specifically looking for it (Phillips 1999:26). For the most part, public opinion is fueled by media presentation of graffiti, which tends to focus on its negative aspects. People are never given a chance to understand what motivates graffiti artists to write and, consequently, they never give the graffiti artists a chance to justify their art. Spanish writer Armando Silva wrote one of the most important and influential books on graffiti. In his Punto de vista ciudadano (from the city's point of view), "he identifies seven distinct, and critical elements that graffiti comprises: marginality, anonymity, spontaneity, elements of setting (space, design, color), speed, precariousness (the use of cheap, easy to obtain materials), and finally fugacidad, the fleeting nature of the marks-ephemerality" (Phillips 1999:29-30). Other than those who study graffiti, most people do not know that there is a method to graffiti, nor would they think to look it up a book written in Spanish. Graffiti on the street appears to be mindless vandalism to the casual observer. In order to understand graffiti, especially as an art form, one cannot play the role of a casual observer.
Graffiti is essentially anti-society, created by individuals who consider themselves social outsiders. They use graffiti as a means to connect with others like themselves and, at the same time, defiantly proclaim their presence to the rest of the world. As a medium, graffiti is available to everyone-the messages of graffiti writers appear in public for everyone to see, yet these messages are understood by few. Though the works are public, the message is ultimately private. People not familiar with graffiti are shut out; prevented from knowing the true authors by the tags, prevented from reading the tags by their stylistic rendering. While individual tags and styles may become familiar to an outsider, this knowledge is only superficial. True familiarity with graffiti necessitates familiarity with the artists themselves. In order to understand graffiti, one needs to understand the people who create it. Fundamentally, graffiti is about people. "It's about relationships, and individuals, and motives" (Phillips 1999:23). What appears on the walls is an extension of the artists, but it gives little information about them. Law enforcement agencies, city officials, and anti-graffiti organizations make assumptions about graffiti writers based upon the writing on the wall. This is where they go wrong, where misunderstanding and misrepresentation takes place. "Without people and context, graffiti are no more than the meanings our imaginations give them" (Phillips 1999:25). Because graffiti resists interpretation, people can only see in it what they want to see.
When graffiti is looked at merely as vandalism, it is evaluated in a negative context; thus, the graffiti artists themselves are obviously viewed as criminals. "As a social practice, reading graffiti is grounded in position and experience-in the situatedness of a readership in a power structure and the graffiti writer's place in it, and the implications of his product for that structure" (Peteet 1996:151). People who are not graffiti writers and have no experience with graffiti culture lack the knowledge to make valid judgements about graffiti itself. They are so far removed from graffiti culture that they are incapable of reading into the messages on the walls. This was precisely the problem that prevented NY-style graffiti from being accepted into the art world on a long-term basis. When art critics attempted to critique graffiti pieces, they lacked the background knowledge of the medium and the artists that was vital to meaningful interpretation. "As a medium of communication, graffiti lies somewhere between art and language. Words become signifiers, solutions, and slogans; that is, they cease to be individual words but become symbols and images, which communicate on a variety of levels. These word images are laden with the visual modifiers of style, color, placement, and form. As much as the content of the writings, these modifiers may radically change the meaning, presentation, and effectiveness of any message" (Phillips 1999:39). Seeing graffiti as vandalism is only the most superficial level of graffiti communication.
In order to get beyond the superficial level of graffiti interpretation, one needs to understand that graffiti is an outlet for independent thinker. One needs to break down the societal barriers separating "us" from "them" and attempt to grasp the other point of view. The age-old anti-graffiti argument "but it's illegal" has done nothing more than put the graffiti war in a perpetual stalemate. One also needs to re-think the idea of public and private space. Granted, property owned by private businesses or individuals is primarily private property. But the walls, trains, bridges, and underpasses that graffiti artists write on are owned by the city. In essence, because they are "public" property, they belong to the graffiti artists as much as they belong to any other city citizen. Taking a liberal standpoint, it is then within the rights of these artists to do whatever they want with "their" property. The problem is that other people might not want graffiti on "their" property because they view graffiti as a product of juvenile delinquency rather than an art form.
Considering that NY-style graffiti has continued to attract writers both nationally and internationally for the past three decades, it must be something more than a trendy and exciting way for youths to vent their rage for identity. "The medium itself implies alienation, discontentment, marginality, repression, resentment, rebellion: no matter what it says, graffiti always implies a 'fuck you.' Though addressing the larger society in this contemptuous manner may be a secondary or even tertiary element of the graffiti writer's agenda, this element always lurks in the background of every graffito on every wall" (Phillips 1999:23). Graffiti writers often feel oppressed, alienated, and overwhelmed by the world around them. Due to the illegal nature of graffiti, these feelings often come across to the public as defiance and rebelliousness. From the opposite perspective, however, graffiti is "an expression of the longing to be somebody in a world that is constantly reminding you that you're not" (Chalfant 1984:7). Graffiti artists refuse to be lost amidst an endlessly changing world. The marks on the walls are if only for a short time, permanent reminders of the individual, unique people who put them there.
"Psychologists say that graffiti are an attempt by insignificant people to impose their identity on others, if only until the wall is cleaned" (Prial 1972). But what justifies "psychologists" in deeming these people insignificant? This type of ignorance is exactly what drives graffiti artists to declare, through their images, "I am somebody." In fact, graffiti artists consider themselves victims of a society that forces itself upon them. 3D, one of England's first writers, argues that generally most people are powerless to do anything about the esthetics of their surroundings: "In the city you don't get any say in what they build. You get some architect that does crappy glass buildings or gray buildings. No one comes up and says, 'We're building this, do you like it?'...So why should I have to explain what I do?... Maybe in the eyes of this town I'm not so important, because I don't have all the high status, but I live here so I should have as much say as anyone else, and that's why I go out and paint, 'cause I want to say something, and I don't want to be told when I can to it" (Chalfant 1984:10). When they write, graffiti artists consider themselves no different than the city officials who go over their work with flat paint. The officials are expressing themselves just as much as the writers, though less creatively. Both the officials and the writers are attempting to impose their will upon each other.
In this power struggle, graffiti artists are at a considerable disadvantage. Most are youths and minorities who are unable to express themselves through the media. For them, "graffiti represents an easily accessible and effective way to communicate with a large audience"(Grant 1996). Though their messages often escape the general public, graffiti tags form a "complex, vague, secretive web of interrelated messages that reveals individual communicators within a discourse context"(Gross 1997). Not only does graffiti have the ability to connect writers within individual cities, but also to span international boundaries. This allows graffiti artists to associate themselves with larger groups of individuals who share similar interests. Artist communication is what fuels their creativity that, along with persistence, are the main weapons that graffiti writers have in their struggle for recognition.
The creations of graffiti writers "feature creative expression in both content and form. The taggers are like creative writers expressing very personal information..." (Gross 1997). While city officials argue that graffiti is a sign of neighborhood decay, graffiti artists feel that a blank wall in the city represents more bad things than any writing on it could. To them, blank walls are ugly and repressive. This is especially true in the inner city and ghettos where kids grow up in poor, rapidly deteriorating neighborhoods. Graffiti artist Brim explains that, "people will never really understand what graffiti is unless they go to New York to live surrounded by abandoned buildings and cars that are burnt and stripped and the City comes out saying that graffiti is terrible, but then you look around the neighborhood and you've got all this rubble and shit, and yet you come out of there with an attitude toward life that you can create something positive" (Chalfant 1984:17). Graffiti is an artistic attempt by neighborhood youths to beautify their neighborhoods. During the Train Dayz, local business owners would often ask artists to do graffiti style murals on their buildings. Though graffiti artists enjoyed brightening up their neighborhoods, they loved nothing more than seeing the effect their creations had in the gloomy subway stations. Contemporary artist Claes Oldenburg once remarked about the New York graffiti, "You're standing in a subway station, everything is gray and gloomy, and all of the sudden one of those graffiti trains slides in and brightens the place up like a big bouquet from Latin America" (Schjeldahl 1973). Unlike anti-graffiti supporters, this recognized artist was able to understand the efforts of the young graffitists.
But is it necessary for something to be understood for it to be considered beautiful? If one were to think about it, the obvious answer would be no. There are plenty of cases in which things are misunderstood and still considered beautiful-except for graffiti. "You get two kinds of recognition," says artist Eric. "You're criminals, you're vandals, you dirty up the place. That's one kind of recognition from the older generation. Then you've got the younger generation like, 'Wow, you're good.... You're a guy with talent'" (Chalfant 1984:49). Again, the general failure of the public to understand graffiti prevents them from grasping its artistic merits. The mere fact that graffiti is passed of as vandalism is evidence of this ignorance. The difference between graffiti and vandalism is that vandalism is done with the intention of destroying something. Graffiti, in contrast, is all about creating something.
Graffiti is only vandalism from the perspective of those who focus on its illegality. Currently, the illegal nature of graffiti plays a role in the graffiti itself. "Criminal aspects of graffiti free writers from constraints that laws would place on their creations. Writers force change on an environment, with without recourse or permission" (Phillips 1999:23). Very few spaces are available for graffiti artists to create legally. Doing works for galleries is too restricting. Graffiti artists choose, therefore, "to bypass the system and the normal channels for exhibiting art that are, more often than not, closed to them anyway" (Chalfant 1984:10). The creation of their art requires that they write on surfaces such as city walls instead. Graffiti is illegal in nature as a consequence of their desire to express themselves artistically in the only way available to them. The inevitable and often used anti-graffiti argument is that "If something is illegal, than it cannot be art." To this argument, Susan Phillips brings up what she deems the Michelangelo question: "If Michelangelo were to have painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel on your garage without your permission would it be art? Illegality and art are separate issues. Ultimately, such debates give people an excuse not to understand what graffiti is and why or how people are using it" (1999:44). Superficially, graffiti artists do not seem like artists to most people, just as graffiti does not seem like art. "But if we look at them closely, graffiti writers who take their work seriously behave much like artists. They specialize, they practice, they plan, they go through some kind of 'creative process,' they are recognized for their work" (Phillips 1999:44). This recognition, though it may only be the recognition of other graffiti artists, is what motivates them to write.
Perhaps one of the most important events in New York graffiti history was the creation of the Graffiti Hall of Fame. Formerly nothing more than an enclosed school playground in Spanish Harlem, the Graffiti Hall of Fame is a place where New York City graffiti kings can create pieces without worrying about them being erased. A legal graffiti wall, the Hall of Fame is essentially a graffiti museum where pieces can be seen in their "natural" setting. Graffiti artists, however, recognize that the Hall of Fame serves a much more important purpose. According to Vulcan, "it gave something to kids that they could relate to, some art from, more than going to the galleries and museums. It gave thousands of kids a revelation to art that they couldn't get in school or at home or anywhere else..." (Chalfant 1984:24).
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects
Chapter 4
In the Year 2000...
An Issue of IllegalityFall 1999-Summer 2000: The Whitney Museum of American Art held a gallery-wide exhibition titled "The American Century." It was done in two parts: The American Century I (1900-1930s) and The American Century II (1940-1990s). On the final floor of the exhibit, around the corner from Jenny Holtzer's LED signs and directly across from one of Keith Haring's works, three framed photographs were dwarfed by the wall on which they were displayed. I practically had to sit on the floor to see them, but I was delighted that I did. The photographs were three "joiners" (two or three 4x6 photographs spliced together to create one image) showed subway cars covered with the stylishly colorful tags of a few Train Dayz legends. Though the photographs had nice composition and were nicely mounted, I found them to be the most easily looked artwork on display in the gallery. Looking at the image no bigger than my hand of an '80s burner by the infamous Blade, I fully understood how graffiti was an art form that could not exist inside the gallery.
After experiencing graffiti-art first hand, in person, while taking photographs for my research, these little masterpieces on a gallery wall seemed both ridiculous and ironic. When a graffiti artist creates a piece, he turns his entire writing surface into a work of art-the art is the wall and vice versa. The pieces are big, breathtaking, and emotional. They demand your attention and are intended to overwhelm and inspire you at the same time. They loudly and proudly break up the monotony of the city's urban landscape. The photographs, nicely mounted in their little frames, conveyed none of this. Originally created and displayed as masterpieces, they were now lost on the wall that displayed them. All New York-style graffiti carries a message to its viewers-these sad photos told me they were powerless.
The inclusion of these photographs into the Whitney's "American Century" exhibition says two things: that graffiti is, at some level, recognized as an art form but also that graffiti, as an art form, has yet to be taken seriously. Works being displayed in galleries and, in some cases, businesses hiring artists to do graffiti murals shows that graffiti has become more acceptable in some social circles. For the most part, however, graffiti artists are still struggling to communicate their art and their motivation to the art community, the authorities, and the public. When the latter groups look at graffiti, they see it in black and white: graffiti is illegal, therefore it can only be vandalism. Graffiti is not black and white. Therefore, artists face the challenge of surmounting this barrier in order to gain understanding and appreciation for their art. "In New York, where the whole thing began, and in some places in L.A., some people are trying to get away from the 'graffiti' label to describe what they do-as aerosol art, spraycan art, and so on" (Phillips 1999:54-55). The rational is that, if graffiti-art can lose its association with illegality, perhaps it can gain legitimacy in the art community or cities and communities will legalize spaces for graffiti art production.
Graffiti does not have to be illegal. This is a somewhat controversial standpoint in the graffiti world, but one that many graffiti artists recognize as the key to finally achieving their goal of making graffiti a legitimate art form. Writers who grew up writing graffiti after the Train Dayz consider graffiti illegal by definition, but only because they fail to recognize that graffiti is only illegal by default-there was no way for it to originate as a legal art form. If given the opportunity, Omar says that most of the older, well respected and well-known graffiti artists would love to make graffiti legal. He explains that, "the people who are mostly yelling that graffiti is illegal and that we should keep it true to its original form were not original artists-they weren't around during the Train Dayz. Most of the stuff you see on the street nowadays is done by kids." Graffiti writers who take themselves seriously as artists would love for graffiti to be legalized. They prefer writing on the legal yards and walls because they can work undisturbed and it is less nerve racking, allowing them to focus on creating detailed and intricate pieces. The creation of legal walls and yards would most likely do more for anti-graffiti campaigns that current obliteration tactics. Legal walls are often the most active yards in cities. However, overuse of the few legal walls, such as the Hall of Fame--draws complaints from artists like Omar. "The hall of fame is for the 'best' or at least the same gang who keeps hitting it, there are other good writers but if all these guys keep filling it up there's no space to do something...." Some legal walls are privately owned and, thus, controlled by their owners, making it difficult for writers to use them. For example, the Phun Factory in Long Island City is reserved for well-known writers and writers not from New York City. Legal walls covered in graffiti often force writers to find other places to write. Consequently, these "other places" are usually illegal walls. It makes sense to give graffiti artists more legal places to write.
Contrary to popular belief, graffiti is not defined by its illegality. Graffiti artists consider graffiti as something that is part of the city's landscape-out in public where everyone can see it. Visibility and recognition are the main points of the art itself. Why else would a writer risk personal injury in order to write his name across a bridge, fully aware that it will soon be erased by the city. As much as graffiti is about recognition and art, it is also about drama and excitement. Graffiti artists describe writing graffiti as an adrenaline rush. "Writers are thrill jockeys" (Light 1999:38). This fearlessness and love of adventure is what allows them to put their tags up in precarious and hard to reach places.
When space for personal expression is limited, writers have to sacrifice permanence for visibility. This sometimes means putting themselves in physical danger to put their name up. If anything, this is evidence of their dedication to their art form. They want the maximum number of people to see their work in the limited amount of time it remains visible. The writing itself is a form of discourse between individuals that goes beyond the fleeting spoken words that are lost in the city's noise and bustle. "The paint will often stay on the walls for a long time speaking for the individual"([ABC1]Gross 1997). In essence, writers are saying, "hey, here I am, here is what I am." At the same time, they are issuing a challenge to other writers and to the public in general-"I dare you to do better than me." Ultimately, this challenge-the idea of unspoken competition-is perhaps the most integral part of graffiti art.
Unspoken competition and communication are essential features of graffiti. In order for graffiti to encompass these features, it needs to exist where other graffiti artists can send and receive messages. On public walls, graffiti establishes this essential connection between graffiti artists. The works of graffiti artists are proudly displayed where they are most visible, thus maximizing the number of other artists who see the works and the amount of recognition the artist can receive. In this respect, graffiti is as much about identity as it is about art. Though public display, competition, and communication, graffiti artists are able to make graffiti a constantly evolving art form. The accessibility and visibility of works makes it easy for artists to keep track of different styles and creative innovations.
Table of Contents | Sophomore Projects
The Rise of a New Empire...MaybeDespite efforts of anti-graffiti networks, graffiti artists continue to experience a thriving subculture. They have even found an alternative replacement for the sorely missed New York City subways. "In the '90s, freight trains have picked up the slack; pieces run all over the country..." (Light 1999:41). Much like the graffiti kings of the Train Dayz, some graffiti artists use freight trains as their sole canvases. They like the idea that their pieces are carried not just throughout a city, but travel nationwide. No matter where they go, these pieces are bound to have an appreciating audience. "Writers are everywhere. Crews are everywhere. Crews are international" (Light 1999:41). Graffiti writers have expanded their communication network beyond the boundaries of their home cities to reach other writers all over the world.
The Internet has been a large part of creating this worldwide graffiti subculture. Writers can communicate instantly and easily through email, chat-rooms, and instant messengers. One great benefit of the Internet is the vast array of graffiti web sites that keep artists in touch with each other and each other's work. Graffiti artists regularly photograph their works and then put them on the web for the enjoyment of all. Graffiti works can be seen by people who never would have had a chance to see them otherwise. Perhaps the greatest contribution of the Internet to graffiti is that, by bridging the physical distances between artists, it has kept graffiti from becoming stagnant as an art form.
Not only does the Internet preserve visible records of this ephemeral artwork for people to see, but it also gives artists around the world a forum through which to compare styles and techniques. "Now that artists share a worldwide network, messages, meanings, and symbols born in New York surge across state lines and national borders" (Chalfant 1984:12). Competition between graffiti artists is what generates style. During the Train Dayz, New York City was the front-runner in graffiti art, not because graffiti started there, but because of the fierce competition. There were so many writers that they had to be great in order to be noticed. In addition, the subways provided direct communication of style between artists-pieces were done and seen immediately. "Writers need other writers to compete with and to communicate with, for comparison, reflection, and a sense of common purpose" (Chalfant 1984:45). Writers were provided with a constant source of inspiration and were challenged to create things bigger or better than their fellow artists. For the most part, this competitive spirit died out with the Train Dayz.
After a few years of stylistic isolation, the Internet has created an environment where graffiti artists are once again in direct communication with each other. They are instantly able to see what other writers are doing as well as where and how they are doing it. "It's only normal, when you're into something and you see somebody doing it differently, you're either going to innovate, elaborate on it, or just take the thing and do it the same way. That's just the difference between being creative and imaginative and just being there" (Chalfant 1984:9). Once again, writers have a constant source of inspiration and motivation. Despite the influences of a newfound direct link between members of the graffiti subculture, writers in New York City still feel the absence of the Train Dayz' competitive spirit. More specifically, they are realizing that the