Graffiti on The Urban Surface

This is a repost of a blogpost on http://ar-chi-tect.org/ with the same title, that I wrote. I just wanted to see your opinion on the subject. Here I've also re-adjusted the contents. Enjoy!

Graffiti exists where human civilization exists. It is almost impossible to find a human settlement without graffiti. They can be found everywhere, almost on any surface throughout the urban sphere, even on surfaces that exceeds the capacity of the human logic. Some people consider graffiti as decorative elements in the urban space. Others relate graffiti to public disorder and vandalism. Therefore perceive graffiti as a sign of lowering community life qualities.Before we continue any further, it would be best if we knew the meaning of the term ‘graffiti’. The term originated from the Italian word graffito (singular form) which means scratch because back in ancient times one could only scratch a solid surface/wall to send out a public message.

Form of visual communication, usually illegal, involving the unauthorized marking of public space by an individual or group. Technically the term applies to designs scratched through a layer of paint or plaster, but its meaning has been extended to other markings. Graffiti is widely considered a form of antisocial behavior performed in order to gain attention or simply for thrills. But it also can be understood as an expressive art form. Derived from the Italian word graffio (“scratch”), graffiti (“incised inscriptions,” plural but often used as singular) has a long history. It has been found in ancient Roman ruins, in the remains of the Mayan city of Tikal in Central America, on rocks in Spain dating to the 16th century, and in medieval English churches. During the 20th century, graffiti in the U.S. and Europe was closely associated with gangs. Graffiti was particularly prominent in major urban centers throughout the world; common targets were subways, billboards, and walls. In the 1990s there emerged a new form of graffiti, known as “tagging,” which entailed the repeated use of a single symbol or series of symbols to mark territory

–Brittanica Concise Encyclopaedia

This article will discuss about the origins of graffiti, its issues, and how public authorities should deal with them. Further more this essay will question the possibility of legalizing graffiti as a public form of art. In an interview done in 1998 by Ken Dray, Coordinator of the New South Wales Graffiti Solutions Program with Mathew Peet, a graffiti artist, rap musician, and youth worker, a discussion was held on the many aspects of graffiti culture and strategies to address to the issue. The author quotes a few words describing Peet’s perspective on graffiti:

“…I definitely think that graffiti is a voice in a way - it’s like the purest form of ‘unedited’ expression. There is no censorship. Basically you can express yourself whatever way you want. The way graffiti expresses itself, the thing that everyone sees is tags, because that’s just someone writing their name, but in a way that’s a statement. In a way that is saying “Here I am”. But it’s also a shy way of expressing yourself. You are not actually showing yourself and saying “I’m out there” but you’re leaving a mark that says you were there.“

The quoted words describe graffiti as an act of insecurity, where the artist does not have to show up publicly to express their existence. Unlike other forms of art (e.g. painting, sculpting, etc.), the artist’s tag / work can be found anywhere throughout the city and may acclaim to a certain degreenof fame but the image of the artist themselves is inconceivable to the greater public outside the graffiti crew.

A journal by Saul Bolivar published in 1997 called ‘“Bombing” L.A.: Graffiti Culture and the Contest for Visual Space’ mentions graffiti as a result of the density of the urban space. As the urban space shrinks due to the extreme race for claims upon it, people somehow adapt to the situation by looking for, and creating new forms of space, adding to the density of urban space in a different way. Saul Bolivar addresses this phenomenon as visual density (application of media on the already existing urban surface, in this case would be billboards, posters, and murals.)

So, is graffiti just an act of vandalism or social disorder? Or is it an act of shy-ness? Or is it the result of the never ending competition of claims to the urban space?

Let's take a look at graffiti's history; As stated earlier, graffiti exists where human settlement exists. The earliest forms of graffiti were the cave paintings by cave dwellers from the prehistoric times. Modern style graffiti, according to Wikipedia, can be traced back to ancient Greece, in the city of Ephesus which is now modern-day Turkey and appears to advertise prostitution.
The Romans carved their graffiti in monuments, and walls. There are also samples of graffiti preserved under the ashes of Mount Vesuvius in the city of Pompeii, offering description of everyday life on the ancient streets of Pompeii. Everyday Latin, insults, love declarations, up to political consigns.
Examples of graffiti are not only found in Greece and Rome, there were also examples from the Mayan site of Tikal in Guatemala. The French also made graffiti by carving their names on monuments during the Napoleon campaign in the 1790s.
In modern times, Political activists used graffiti as a quick and easy way to make a statement without too much risk to the writer (started out in late 1960s with the hippies, creating the early groundwork for graffiti.) Gang graffiti began to arise during the beginning of graffiti’s foundation, using graffiti to mark territory. Modern graffiti culture began towards the end of the 1960s in Philadelphia. The centre of graffiti innovation moved from Philadelphia to New York City in the 1970s. 1966-1971 saw the invention of newer and much more creative writing techniques by the graffiti pioneers.
During the period between 1966-1989 graffiti history had its prominent years where the act evolved in underground subways and on the cars themselves. Although pre-dating the hip-hop culture by almost a decade and being a culture on its own, modern graffiti (20th century graffiti) is depicted through Hollywood movies as an element of the hip-hop culture alongside hip-hop’s DJ, MC, and break dancing (The relationship between hip-hop and graffiti is yet to be questioned for not all graffitists listen to hip-hop. It is only because a number of graffitists happen to enjoy the three elements comprising the hip-hop culture and often their activities took place in the same areas where the other three evolved into forms of art.) In the 1970s graffiti was made synonymous with the world of anti-establishment punk rock with bands such as Black Flag and Crass.

Graffiti faced a surge in style and popularity during 1971-1974 (known as the pioneering era) in New York City, where an artist began to gain popularity outside the graffiti society. During this time artists began to move from the city streets to the subways. The first seeds of competition came into being as artists tried to do as many tags and bombs (large pieces of graffiti) as possible. Since there were so many graffiti artists at this period, tags began to take their distinctive calligraphic appearance to distinguish between artists. New techniques developed during this period, thicker outlines, polka dots, cross hatches, etc. leading to high demands in paint. Mainstream society noticed this boom and 1972 saw the founding of United Graffiti Artists (UGA) by Hugo Martinez with the aim to present graffiti in an art gallery setting.
Graffiti’s peak as an art form was during 1975-1977. Heavy ‘bombing’ occurred due to economic restraints on New York City, rendering the city helpless to combat the art form through graffiti removal programs or transit maintenance. Pieces that used to cover the height of the subway cars evolved into whole cars. A new style emerged that was more complex than ordinary tags, but less intricate than a piece. This new style is known as ‘throw up’, altering the standards set in the 1970s and leading to the desire of artists to expand and change.
During the end of the 1970s and entering the early 1980s the Metro Transit Authority (MTA) began to build better fences around train yards and was into total eradication of graffiti. Many artists called it quits since their work was continuously scrubbed off. However, the established art world began to be more receptive to the graffiti culture and for many outside New York City it was the first time being exposed to the art form.
The streets became more dangerous due to the crack (cocaine) epidemic in the 1980s, causing a huge decline in writing. Other factors that support the decline were restrictions on paint sale and display, and penalties for writers were made more severe. Writers at that period became very territorial for good writing spots, and strength in numbers and unity became increasingly important. Writers who chose to go alone were often beaten and robbed of their supplies.

Between the years 1985-1989 (the die hard era) the writers’ only hope for writing was subway cars heading for the scrap yard. The MTA had won their war on graffiti and the culture had taken a step back. The number of writers declined rapidly, along with the number of violence associated with graffiti crews.

The era known as the clean train movement era was marked by the movement of the majority of graffiti artists from subway cars to street galleries. Many debated whether graffiti should be considered as an actual art form. In the early 1980s, artists like Jean-Michel Basquiat displayed their works in art galleries and ran their own studios.
Commercialization came with the popularity and legitimization of graffiti. Large companies like IBM launched advertising campaigns which involved writers. Along with the rise of graffiti’s popularity, video games began depicting the graffiti culture, in a positive aspect.

Presented below are the known graffiti styles:

Tag: the most basic writing of an artist can either be done by spray paint or marker. When graffiti is referred to vandalism, “tagging” is the most common example given since the main highlight of tagging is the style of penmanship and it lacks of artistic form.

Throw-up: simple pieces using only a few colors, comprising of only a few letters and often incorporate exclamation marks, sacrificing aesthetics for speed. A throw-up can either be done using either spray paint or marker.

Fill-in or Piece: more elaborate compared to throw-ups, incorporating block or bubble-letters, using three or more colors. Pieces are more time consuming, therefore increasing the risk of writers getting caught by the authority.

Wild style or wicked style: a more complex piece where the letters are usually interlocking making them hard to read by the non-graffiti society as the letters merges into one another in an undecipherable manner.

Blockbuster: fill-in that covers an entire wall, usually with the purpose of covering up other artist’s tag.

Get-up: a quick attempt to cover up another artist’s work using a sticker. This action is normally considered lazy by most artists, but others consider the five-ten minutes spent preparing the sticker is not worthy of the title lazy.

Each graffiti piece shows different styles: it shows the culture of the artist’s country of origin which plays a great role in shaping the artist’s personal style.

Let's move on to graffiti's relationship with the city; we can say through ancient graffiti, we can obtain information on everyday life in the ancient cities around the world, and through modern day graffiti one can catch a glimpse of other’s point of view, and if treated as signs of culture, graffiti serves as an instrument of cultural record. The future society may be able to learn about the level of cultural advancement in our time through graffiti.
The Wikipedia states that graffiti is often related to the subculture rebelling against authority, and usually expresses various political practices. Graffiti also helps deliver ‘anti-war’, ‘feminist’, ‘anarchist’, and other campaign messages.
Graffiti is not always an attempt to deliver certain messages or opinions. In some cases graffiti is the result of pure desire, hunger for recognition, or resulting from an act of affection (Pride).

In general the community looks at graffiti as something from the lower order of society, lowering the quality of life in the community. In the 1982 documentary feature “Style Wars”, detective Bernie Jacobs, Crime Prevention Coordinator for New York City, Transit Department defines graffiti as ‘the application of a medium to a surface’ graffiti in his opinion is not an art but a form of crime. The society also finds graffiti somewhat disturbing. A writer’s mother even considered graffiti as ‘a whole miserable subculture’.
Some people however found graffiti to be very interesting, that it meant more than just scribbles on the wall. As some works can only be read by the graffiti community, then it certainly has a deeper meaning than just names or words scribbled in a deformed manner on the urban surface?
When the art community began to accept graffiti as a form of art and opening their galleries to them, some writers find it as a commercialization attempt while others think that train graffiti is slowly dying out and art galleries are the next level for graffiti art, where pieces would last a life time. For the society outside New York City, during the early 80’s, graffiti on the trains are symbols of New York City. As graffiti makes their way to art galleries, some foreigners find it sad to see graffiti existing only in galleries and no longer on trains.

It is clear that the authority finds graffiti as a plague to be dealt with to uphold the quality of life. A lot of money had been spent on replacing broken train side windows, and the possibility to replace the glass with acrylic was ruled out because graffiti removal solutions fog the acrylic windows. Trains are regularly washed, and with the graffiti on their bodies, the MTA had to use graffiti removal solution which defaces the trains’ physical make up.
The eradication of graffiti began by publishing posters saying “Make your mark in society, not on society” which were put in buses and trains. Television public service advertisements were also aired to aid the campaign against graffiti using youth icons of the time such as, Hector Camacho and Alex Ramos (Boxing stars; Camacho was a North American light weight champion boxer during that period, and Ramos was the leading middle weight contender.) The posters say “Take it from the champs, graffiti is for chumps.”
Another method the city government used is altering train shifts. The change of schedule, the building of double fences around train yards and putting dogs on patrol between the fences, lead to train graffiti’s slow death. Although the trains still have some tags written on them, but the big pieces and bombs no longer decorate their bodies making them relatively cleaner than before.
The writers reacted to this situation by pointing out bigger issues like fighting muggers and murderers on the transit system. They feel the MTA had wasted money on their battle against graffiti when there are people who do greater damage to the society than they do.
Different approaches towards the graffiti epidemic have been taken by authorities all over the world. In Europe there are ‘community cleaning squads’ such as France’s Protestant youth group Éclaireurs de France who took to their scrubbing action to archeological sites earning them the 1992 LG Nobel Prize in archaeology. Great Britain issued an anti-graffiti legislation known as the ‘Anti-Social Behavior Act 2003’. In the year 2004 the ‘Keep Britain Tidy’ campaign took place, issuing a press release on ‘Zero Tolerance’ for graffiti and supporting on the spot fines for anyone caught doing graffiti, and banning the sales of aerosol paint to teenagers. Other than that, the campaign also condemned the use of graffiti in advertising and music videos which often portrayed graffiti as something cool and edgy, arguing that the real world experience of graffiti exists far removed from the latter.
Authorities in Australia decided to provide legal walls for graffiti writers in an attempt to reduce the act of vandalism. Some suggest that this will encourage graffiti writers to be able to take their time and produce greater art without having to worry about getting caught by local authorities. Others are more skeptical and claim that the existence of legal walls will not reduce the amount of illegal graffiti. Another strategy local authority used to fight against graffiti was the ‘brownout’ which was a rapid removal program by painting trains brown. However this rapid removal program only managed to eradicate big pieces but not tagging.
Singapore had an incident involving graffiti in 1993 where several expensive cars were found spray painted. Michael P. Fay, a student from the Singapore American School was arrested and charged with vandalism. He eventually pleaded guilty to the charges in addition to stealing road signs and was sentenced to four months in jail, a fine of SG$3.500,- and caning according to 1966 Singapore Vandalism Act which was legislated to battle communist graffiti. The American public outraged to the sentence passed and flooded the Singaporean embassy with protests. Although the Singaporean government received many protests, Fay’s caning took place on May 1994 with the amount of lashes reduced from six lashes to four.

Up to this day the argument of graffiti being either a form of art or a menace to society still exists. A group of people encourage the proliferation of such street art to beautify and decorate the city, whereas the other group, local authority included, acts according to a contradictive agenda. The solution to such situation may well lie in the boundary of graffiti as an art form, and graffiti as an act of vandalism. Question is: where is this boundary? When do we look at graffiti as art and when do we see it as vandalism? Art and vandalism, in the street context, have a very vague border line. A mural may be considered as vandalism to those who do not favor it even if the mural is legal, and vice versa. Either way, one can safely say that most people are afraid of things that they do not understand, and graffiti with its ‘exclusive’ nature may pose a certain degree of threat and insecurity to some layers of society. Should we fight against graffiti to live cleaner environments or should we let graffiti exist to give the city the notion of a lived environment?

Click here to see original post :)