To understand why graffiti is so vilified by the powers that as mere “vandalism” one must know what vandalism actually is. Painter Gustave Courbet (a famous vandal himself,) considered it to be the “destruction of monuments symbolizing war and conquest,” a perhaps romanticised view I find difficult to agree with; since when did a bunch of chavs ever justify overtly the arson, for example of a bus shelter in terms of the shelter’s socio-economic significance? I’ve yet to hear one. A more apt descriptor is that of vandalism being the expression of an alternate culture, in this case the “criminal” one.
Vandalism is executed against another’s property in any case, and this is to my mind the root of the reason as to why it is considered unacceptable in a capitalistic society such as ours: it destroys the link between being a well-adjusted, functional person’s exploits at work, and his material wealth. Tags on cars make them worthless, and consequently the hours spent at work tallying up the monies requisite to buying said car are no longer of worth to the worker. The tag has transubstantiated the work from a point where it can be used to buy things, where it is essentially useless. Needless to say, for the worker, this is upsetting. His car is fucked, and he’s wasted his time doing reports on how John Doe broke his legs while sodomising a large black man on a non-regulation surface for the purposes of an insurance claim. The worker thus makes the link that vandalism annuls his exploits, and therefore must be in in opposition to his goals; much like an enemy.
To me, this is a good thing, It reminds us of the transient nature of things material, and it seems as if many crews which don’t produce crap graff are intent on reminding us that there are things far more important than the appearance of a public space, or the look of a car. It is a special case due to the car still being useful as a tool, and nothing else. It no longer becomes a status symbol of the hours sacrificed, or ideals compromised to achieve a status the worker has had to to make his purchase possible. Some people need this violent prompting more than others, but I view graffiti as a vector towards a more functional, and less materially judgemental system of thought. This can be considered the “criminal culture” discussed above. It may also teach that events do not necessarily follow from one another, and infuse a bit of interest into the life of your average 40 year old, who’s perfectly nice and all, but wandering his way to the grave having left all of his passions in his 20’s. This “interest,” is something the taggers also sometimes seek, when they enter into the risk-taking of tagging a train, or someone’s personal property, indulging an impulse made redundant years ago, when risk was the conduit to survival, e.g. through catching animals to eat, etc. and thus I am compelled to support graffiti made in that spirit of awakening the senses, through the desecration of certain things we hold dear: for the sake of the one who had his house graffiti’d (it’s for his own good,) and for the burning youth’s desire not to become totally numb, in a society whose ruler’s recent actions seem to treat people as mindless economic units.
It is also important to celebrate graffiti expressing unfavourable, and even seditious views, for they are socially incredibly important. They remind us that “the right” to free speech extends only as far as what the government want us to say, and no further. Examples such as Richard Barnbrook’s treatment in the London assembly, and laws outlawing the professing of hatred for gays and minorities reflect this bastardised version of free speech, that prohibits discussion of “extreme” and “underground” views. Look at the picture below. To “say” such a thing would incur a legal action if someone of eminence said something “bad” by these laws, or arrest if someone normal said them at the wrong place, at the wrong time. The presence of offensive graffiti evokes discussion, and alerts people as to the presence of more that just centrist views present in their community, something that allows itself to be a platform for articulation of something more than just fuel price issues, and directs thought towards why and how such graffiti artists exist, and either what can be done with them, or (preferably) why the laws of free speech prohibit the progression of certain, equally viable viewpoints to just the centrist one. Either way, if it makes people think, it’s good.
Graffiti, finally becomes art through the framing of a certain point in time, such as Banksy’s protests against increasing police power in Britain manifested as a picture of homosexual activities between 2 officers of the law, or the below Nazi picture epitomising a racial divide in a community. It is through this, it realises itself also as a form of culture. Perhaps a criminal one, but most certainly one whose primary tool is “shock and awe” tactics to deliver whatever message is has across.
You can read more articles like this at http://www.repine.net78.net There’s also UK graffiti photos and writer interviews.
UK graffiti and intelligent writing on the issues surrounding the culture
After producing the first issue of ‘repine magazine’ the running costs were high and distribution was slow.
We therefore decided to take the magazine online and try to display the large number of local photos we were receiving and give more people a chance to read articles on graffiti; a way of sharing views and experiences of the culture that needs greater participation.
February 5th, 2010 | 
Author: 
Posted in Uncategorized | 
Tags: 