In <[log in to unmask]> Ivy Strickler
<[log in to unmask]> writes:

>I've been following this thread for some time and felt it was time to
>contribute. I don't think the real issue is whether graffitti is art (high
>or low) but one of whether painting anything (art or not) on someone else's
>property is vandalism. Maybe this is two threads?

        <snipped part on Philly project ... which sounds constructive>

This is a good question ... and I hope that you are leaving it as open as
oyu seem to. recently I taught a studio class where there was one student
who was doing graffiti as his work, and another student who was doing a
project on the 'evil' of graffiti -- focusing on the vandalism issue.

At the start, most of the class sided with the second student, refusing to
see graffiti as anything other than sheer vandalism. After extensive
discussin, and some prodding by me, we made the whole issue much more
complex. It was no surprise, for instance, that those who were solidly
against graffiti in any manner were also from privileged backgrounds. Often
they couched their opposition in terms of 'it's all right to make graffiti
on something you own, but not on something someone else owns.' The student
who was doing hte graffiti was from an area of town that consists of
basically absentee landlords and abandoned buildings.

As the discussion continued over the course of the term, it started to
become apparent to some of the privileged students that the attitude of
'only on your own property' was also saying 'you can only make art if you
own property' (A contributing factor was that the graffiti-est could not
afford canvas and paper, et cetera -- I considered buying canvas and paper
for this student out of my own pocket, and even brought it up to him, but he
-- rightly -- declined with the rather brilliant observation that I would
not always be there to buy the materials for him, and that therefore anything
he learnt in the class would be of less value for him in the long run.)

His work slowly changed, to be less merely making formally pleasing graffiti
and started to question why he was doing more work on these buildings than
the absentee landlords ... i.e. if he didn't paint them, no one else was
going to.

Yes, graffiti is 'illegal'. It also can be engaged in all the issues that
surround it concerning entitlement, unjust economic conditions, community
building, et cetera. Let's not miss the point the fact that it might be the
very illegality of the practice that gives it some of its critical force.



Michael M

--
"If you can't use your delete key, get offa the internet."

Michael [log in to unmask]