[QueenTiye]

In the Musical Instruments thread in GMD, woody000 made a passing comment about graffitti, which prompted me to google the term and find some illustrations:

QueenTiye, on Oct 24 2005, 03:20 PM, said:

Here are some pieces I came across on a first pass at Google:

attachment attachment attachment attachment attachment
I find graffiti done by graffiti artists can be quite expressive.  I only wish it weren't all about conducting art on other people's property.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What intrigued me about the site I came across was the international character of graffiti art. The current form of graffiti, expressed in the images there, originates in the United States, but has spread throughout the world. Part of what some graffitti artists LIKE about the art is the art of "getting up" - namely getting their art on walls illicitly. I visited the FAQs section of the web page, and thought I'd share some quotes:

http://www.graffiti...._questions.html

Quote

Why is this called "graffiti" when that other, stupid stuff is also called graffiti...you know, the bathroom wall sayings and things?

Schmoo: Graffiti, to me, is writing on the wall. I trace what writers do today back to the Roman Empire, where the name graffiti first got applied to writing on a wall.

John: Here in Brazil, there is a special word for plain writing on the wall ("pichao"--untranslatable, but maybe "wall scribble" will do). Also we do a lot of figurative painting without words at all, which some have called "graffiti-murals." In general, any wall-painting done with little or no support, not vinculated to an institution, illegal or not, gets called a "graffiti." As the activity has expanded, new forms get lumped under the same word. Doesn't seem to be much point anymore in insisting on a definition. There're just too many possibilities. If a guy paints the same thing in the same place, for pay, that he would have done for free, should it get another name? What should one call a very poetic, or philosophic, statement written on the bathroom door? Isn't there a Bible story about some dude (Nebuchadnezzar?) reading the "writing on the wall?" [susan: It supposedly said: mene, mene, tekel upharsin -- measured, measured and found wanting] Graffiti? Hell, he got it into the Bible! Who knows what primitive graffitnik didn't get supper because he drew a lopsided bison in the family cave?

SaGe: All forms of public writing iz graffiti. Tha "art" iz actually a in result from bathroom writing (which nearly all writers know iz where they first started.....Tha bathroom wall).

Quote

What is the deal with all the big words?

Schmoo: This gets tied back to our influences. Graf as we know it today started by writing your name. As competition started getting fierce in New York back in the early 70s a need to make your name bigger and bolder emerged. Once everyone figured out that anyone could make their name big, style started taking over. Another influence on graf, because it's in the city, is billboards and store fronts. In many ways graffiti is just like advertising, and what do you see in advertising?...big words. An even earlier influence is that of illuminated manuscripts. The most prominent feature of those works are the biggest and most detailed letters.

Celtic: It happens because if someone does a nice piece that says say "arc" someone else is going to want to show him or her up by doing a piece that says "revoloution" or something like that. It's like I can do it bigger and therefore better than you.

Quote

Isn't all that name writing in my neighborhood gang turf markings?

Schmoo: Anymore, I would say that very little of it is.

Kairos: No. While graffiti crews could be considered gangs, they are not the kind that sell crack to 8-year olds and walk around with uzis. In large cities there is probably a fair amount (maybe 10%) of "graffiti" that is done by gangs, but it is very different in style (i.e., it has none) and in message from the graffiti we speak of here. Gang graffiti is usually done in poorer taste, and done strictly for marking terrain.

Celtic: You just hit on probably the number one misconception.

Until I read the next quote - I'd always assumed that graffiti just IS illegal, and that the art could be done in better venues. But having been involved with artists, I know how expensive art really is (to make) and how little reward there is for art - the artist wants their art to be seen, but often gets stuck trying to get it sold - so they can keep on being an artist, and gain a bigger audience. All of a sudden, from the pov of an artist, "getting up" makes a little more sense... and then there's this:

Quote

Is graffiti really illegal?

Schmoo: Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There are many legal yards in all major cities. Some cities tolerate it more than others.

Kairos: By and large, yes. In the United States, graffiti is an illegal act but there are still "legal walls" -- places where writers can go to do murals without fear of being arrested. The limited number of legal walls leads to writers constantly having to go over one another for space. This drives the better writers away because they do not want to see their time-consuming works trashed in only a matter of days.

Laws vary in other countries. In general, it is illegal most everywhere, although in Australia, graffiti is seen as a sport, of sorts, and there are competitions sponsored by big-name companies. Please note that without the permission of the wall's owner, it is illegal in Australia as well.

Celtic: Yeah very illegal in most places, heavy fines, jail time etc... Especially in major cities that think they have a graffiti problem.

SO... what do YOU think? Is graffiti art, or illegal activity, or both? Is it really graffiti if its not illegal? Should more places do the way Australia does, and set up "getting up" sporting events? Etc?

QT

Attached image(s)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

This post has been edited by QueenTiye: 24 October 2005 - 03:06 PM

[Zwolf]

Well, to quote Type O Negative, "Functionless art is simply tolerated vandalism." It really depends on the graffiti, and where it is. If it's on my property, then heck no, it ain't art. If it's on a building and it's well-done, then I'd probably see it as art... although the building's owner would likely beg to differ.

My guess is the answer would be, it's both art and crime. Some of it is actually pretty good stuff, but, if it's put up without permission, then that's not a good thing.

Cheers,

Zwolf

[Lin731]

QT,
the examples you've displayed here I'd call art but yes, if it is "unauthorised art" it's still illegal. If you paint the side of your own building or have permission to paint, that's kewl. If you don't then you're breaking the law (no matter how interesting or impressive your artwork might be). I think the "getting up" sporting events is an excellent idea. There's some real talent out there and for some it may well be their way out of living in poverty or the outlet to keep them from getting into real trouble.

[QueenTiye]

Here's a link to info about an event held in New York City last month - partially to launch a new Nintendo video game called "Getting Up"

http://www.eckounltd.com/marceckoblog/

I agree that its "illegal" because people have a right to their property rights. OTOH - there's the issue of what graffiti art is all about. Its intended to be showy - in your face. Back in the 80s, Keith Haring's art showed up all over the NYC subway system - and started raising public awareness of the AIDS crisis. It had something to say - and it said it to the public - in a way that housing it in a nice safe place would not have.

OK - so lets call it civil disobedience - illegal, but justified in some cases.

Do "legal" walls and sport change the message of graffiti (when there is one)? Do cities and other areas do enough to make sure that "legal walls" really are where they need to be to make the use of them valid? Does it mean something different when someone paints a poignant picture on a wall or when someone paints it in a safe place?

A few years back, someone got murdered in a section of town not too far from where I live. I don't recall seeing anything about it in the newspaper, or on the news - it was just another death. Young black male. Some graffiti artist took up an entire wall to draw his picture, the words RIP and some other stuff - in the area where he had been killed. There, those who knew him set up a street memorial - flowers, various assortment of alcohol bottles - where the alcohol had been poured on the ground as a libation, candles, prayer cards. I didn't know the guy, and probably didn't know anyone who knew the guy. BUT - the art was so poignant, and drew such effective attention to the memorial - that I stopped and said a prayer on his behalf. So - this act of vandalism - enabled me to think about a life that was lost - a life that wasn't notable enough for the newspapers to report that it had ended - but which was meaningful to someone... if no one else than his mother, who likely outlived him.

What I'm asking is - is there not a valid reason for putting art where people didn't ask you to put it?

QT

[Lin731]

QT,
I understand what you're saying an appreciate what inspired the artist. I REALLY do. Now if that was my building and he'd asked me if he could paint a tribute, I'd have said yes, I'd wager many others would as well. Heck I'd let them use my wall (new featured artist every month) but it's still illegal when you do it without permission of the property owner. Maybe one answer would be if some sort of artist friendly, owner registry was created...If you own property and have a space artists could use, you put your name on it.

[Ryan-AE]

Hi,

Personally I love seeing "good" grafitti....Of course its dependent on a persons perspective....What I love, someone else may hate. It reminds me a lot in some cases of abstract art, sometimes not. But it leaves interpretation open to the eye of the beholder.

Aside from basing whether grafitti is grafitti, just on the legal issues, I would say that is based more on the canvas side of things. What makes grafitti what it is? I think its the fact that art is being applied to stone, brick, concrete, plastic siding, steel doors, grooved objects, hot and cold surfaces, etc....More often than not outdoors and in the natural elements.

Sure you can pull it into a legal arena in the form of contests and competitions, and that is good in many ways, but you're kind of pulling grafitti out of its natural habitat, away from where it was born and raised,....On the streets.

I have seen some grafitti artists doing their thing and many of them are very spontaneous about their work. Like many of us artists in general, they have a simple idea, a shape, a sound, a mirage of color, an out of focus image, a groove......and they just let go and flow with it.....Sometimes its crap.....Other times its a masterpiece!!.....I think when you pull that into a competitive arena you lose a lot of that spontaneity, and therefore you lose some of what grafitti was intended to be.

Concerning it being illegal or not, I agree that it should be illegal if permission is not granted by the owner of the property, whether it is used for a good cause or not. You have to look at the negative side of things as well.

If I'm a property owner and a kid comes along and paints a grafitti mural across my wall (personally I wouldn't mind), it is my problem if I don't want it there....I'm the one who has to pay to get rid of it. Aside from that, unfortunately, some grafitti is attributed to gangs, so I buy a property, it gets defaced by a gang member. Next thing I know I have gangs hanging around my building, from there, drugs and violence center on my neck of the woods, and I could face severe consequences for removing such a symbol from my property.

Yeah, grafitti can be created for some of the best reasons in this world, but like anything else, it can be created for some of the worst too. We can't be biased with Freedom of Speech hanging around every corner.

However, I don't think someone arrested for painting grafitti on a property should go to jail either. I think they should be responsible for removing their art or paying for the removal of it, unless it is attributable to gang warfare, and then there should be stiff penalties.

Just my two cents!!

-R

[Rhea]

I think graffiti is terrific - *IF* you're doing it with the permission of the person who owns the building. However, I don't think you get to go around defacing other people's properyty without their knowledge or consent no matter how talented you are.

[quicksilver]

Graffiti is drawing on walls. What makes it a crime is using somebody else's walls without permission. Tagging OTOH is a crime. It is ALWAYS done on someone else's stuff ( not just walls) , never with permisson , and is generaly just ugly.

There are fabulous graffiti artists. Some like Jean Michael Basquiat , have ascended to a place where their art is recognized and respected.

[WildChildCait]

if it's my wall or house you're defacing, it's crime. if it's your own, well, it's art.

[Cheile]

what Chaddee said.

if they are given permission to do it or it's on their own property, then it's graffiti art. if not, it's illegal graffiti.

[Psyche]

I don't think art and crime are completely separated. Its art, no matter who's wall its on. Art is art.

But it becomes illegal art when there's no permission given or whatnot. Its still art.

[mjtian]

Unfortunately in today's society, graffiti is also related to crime. Growing up in San Francisco, I saw graffiti all over the place. I personally do not like it. I recall going to school one morning and seeing the maintenance crew trying to paint over the newly sprayed graffiti. Indeed, some of the "artists" are gifted, but I don't think these acts/art should be allowed in public.


mjtian

[QueenTiye]

I asked a question the answer to which I already knew, so let me try again.

At debate here is not whether or not its really "illegal" but whether or not there's a way to legitimize it without diluting it. Let me try this this way:

Currently, graffitti provides the following:

1. An art form that cuts across national boundaries, and divisions of race and class.

2. A sporting thrill - the act of getting up without getting caught feeds some daredevil interests, and utilizes problem solving skills. (Just how DOES one "get up" a project that will cover a couple of stories - starting from the 4th floor, and climbing to the 6th? and all under the cover of darkness?

3. An immediate communication vehicle between artist and the public - often strategically placed to make particular statements.

4. Intense competition

5. Easy entry-level (low level "tags" and simple black pen marks are starting points)

6. Because of its free and illegal nature - graffiti allows for far more artist exposure than the typical art world, in which one has to be patronized in some way in order to get "seen." There are therefore quite a large number of graffiti artists - more than can be accommodated in typical art venues.


At the same time, graffiti does the following:

1. Defaces public and private property.
2. Infringes on the 1st amendment rights of others (I shouldn't be forced to make YOUR political statements)
3. Allows for gang communication.
4. Fosters juvenile delinquency (young graffiti artists tagging at night while trying to elude law officers is not a thing I think we should encourage)

How do we avoid the 4 negative properties of graffitti, while encouraging the 6 positive properties - and doing it legally?

QT

[Ryan-AE]

I don't think you can.

I think maybe you can cut down the amount of illegal grafitti being put on walls and such, but you can never eliminate it. And by eliminate, I mean eliminate the 4 negatives.

I am sure one draw to grafitti is the fact that it's illegal. You'll never get rid of gangs, in fact I am positive the gang population will grow to uncontainable proportions because people just except everything around them and rarely fight for change. (another topic)

I would say that the average age range for grafitti artists who are in the beginning stages is between 12 and 20. Do you remember when you were that age? I didn't care about anyone or anything, especially public or private property. Not saying that is right, just saying the vast majority of teens couldn't care less about what "adults" deem as "wrong" or "illegal".

That is the no-holds-barred, experimentation, non-caring, utterly stupid phase. You know, when teenagers chug bottles of vodka because "they can hold their liquor" or teens have 5 sex partners inside of a week because "thats what makes you popular", or when teens walk the neighborhood at night egg-ing police cars, or smashing store windows, vandalizing the local arcade, or snapping antenna's off cars, because "that's fun".

In the real world, you can bring this inside as much as possible, have national championships, have multiple areas in every city in the world that allow for this type of art, even set up the ability to have your work photographed professionally for free, so even when it gets covered up, it can still carry on and live for the artist.

Hold local contests with cool prizes (Alienware gaming systems, iPods, cash, national recognition, etc), and make it free for everyone because much grafitti stems from poor and poverty stricken areas. And DON'T turn it into something like "American Idol" because you will lose the core interest and talent.

But even if you do all this and more (which would be a great idea), you won't eliminate the things you want to because there will always be teen rebellion, gangs, illegal behavior and the like. It is a human facet of life. You can't change that, without changing the structure of society. And people do not strive towards or embrace change, even if it is of benefit to them.

My three cents!!

-R

[QueenTiye]

Hi Ryan-AE! I'll be back w/ more comments, but for now, a belated welcome to the Isle!

QT

[Ryan-AE]

Thank you QT.

This is a great place so far, I'm having a good time.

[Godeskian]

Off and on over the years when travelling the US, I would see the most amazing ocean designs painted on the sides of buildings. these suckers were huge, and must have taken weeks to put together. I've seen them in at least three places before I finally found the 'home' gallery in Hawai'i, but I would never have known to look if not for the painting done on the walls.

I imagine the artist requested permission first, but even when it's illegal, it does look nice. That doesn't excuse people using other people's property for their art, but it also doesn't stop it being art.

IMO of course.

[offworlder]

Graffitti ... as I'm seeing the definition here (never looked it up meself) ... putting the 'art' markings on property that is not yours ... is illegal ... irrespective of it's merits as art.

So, the question of it being art, and some of it is and some of it aint, is separate from the question of it being legal. So it's not a 'or' type deal: it is the one, then it can be or can be not the other.

I've never heard of wordy art put on your own property be termed graffitti - even if it's on property not your own but there by permission, like an art display or gallery type thing, then it's not graffitti: then it's a gallery display of what graffitti is out in the wild.

[QueenTiye]

The word graffiti doesn't inherently mean put on property not yours - it inherently means writing on walls.

QT

[QueenTiye]

Ryan-AE, on Oct 25 2005, 11:53 AM, said:

I don't think you can.

I think maybe you can cut down the amount of illegal grafitti being put on walls and such, but you can never eliminate it. And by eliminate, I mean eliminate the 4 negatives.

I am sure one draw to grafitti is the fact that it's illegal. You'll never get rid of gangs, in fact I am positive the gang population will grow to uncontainable proportions because people just except everything around them and rarely fight for change. (another topic)

I don't believe gang populations will grow out of proportion - because that would have to mean that people will not only avoid confronting them, but actually join them. I don't believe that.

Quote

I would say that the average age range for grafitti artists who are in the beginning stages is between 12 and 20. Do you remember when you were that age? I didn't care about anyone or anything, especially public or private property. Not saying that is right, just saying the vast majority of teens couldn't care less about what "adults" deem as "wrong" or "illegal".

There's truth to that. But I guess when I say "eliminate" I mean, "eliminate the necessity." Teens being stupid happen without it being necessary - there are legitimate expressions of the things that teens get into.

Quote

In the real world, you can bring this inside as much as possible,

That would be completely contrary to the intention of the art, so far as I understand it. Let's take this one off the options list.

Quote

have national championships,

Which implies having to join, pay money, etc... which begins to segregate and classify people. I suppose it could be done in a way that doesn't do that to people but I don't know of any way not to have that element creep in.

Quote

have multiple areas in every city in the world that allow for this type of art,

They have this now, apparently. So-called "legal walls." I'd like to see legal walls in odd places in order for the art to retain its authenticity.

Quote

even set up the ability to have your work photographed professionally for free, so even when it gets covered up, it can still carry on and live for the artist.

I like that idea...

Quote

Hold local contests with cool prizes (Alienware gaming systems, iPods, cash, national recognition, etc), and make it free for everyone because much grafitti stems from poor and poverty stricken areas. And DON'T turn it into something like "American Idol" because you will lose the core interest and talent.

Agreed entirely. But then - where does the money for the prizes come from?

QT