However, after thinking about the dynamic between the writers and the administration that was at times comical and ironic, I realized that there were much more powerful motives than the debate of its legitimacy as art. I found this issue of graffiti in this time period as a power struggle. The "writers", while creating art for sure, were mostly expressing their power to leave a mark on the city. When the boy in kitchen with his mom first pointed this out, I thought it referred to his personal power. However, I later identified this to be representative of a movement to defy the authority of the city that was seen as oppressing these teens. I do not see this as a bad thing because this a relatively harmless outlet for such feelings of resentment. Someone asked why they did not all just use canvas for their artistic endeavors. It would just not have been rebellious enough to write one's name on a canvas repeatedly.
On the other side, we spent a lot of time making fun of the city officials who were opposing the graffiti and declaring it to be making people feel unsafe. I think a lot of their motives were to maintain order (as any governing body does), so it was imperative to cover up the rebellious acts, whether they were art or not. This is reinforced by the fact that the graffiti inspired art was so successful among a similar group. It is too bad they were forced to clear off such great pieces of art.
Graffiti is a great form of art to have come from teens who would otherwise be restricted in this creative regard. However, it is important to acknowledge the power struggle that went along with it.
I definitely agree with you on the almost comical nature of the relationship between the writers and the administration. The one scene that comes to mind is the scene where the governor (I think) was talking about his plan to set up a barbed wire fence, and then putting a dog behind it incase any writer's managed to get over the fence, and then putting up another fence behind it so that the dog wouldn't get on the tracks. I remember thinking "THAT'S RIDICULOUS" because I thought of all of the money that it would cost to put all of that up, and through the fact that the governor felt so strongly about stopping graffiti really shows the lack of respect he feels for that form of art. PLUS HE'S SPENDING TONS OF MONEY TO STOP PEOPLE FROM DRAWING ON SOMETHING AND NOT EVEN MAKING IT LESS FUNCTIONAL. I mean this sh*t is, fu*king ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThe "power" dynamics you describe, surrounding graffiti art and its moral/legal ambiguities, are important: there is indeed a kind of self-assertion and rebellion in young, "invisible," neglected young people forcing the city to take notice of them through these colorful and highly original renditions of their self-given names.
ReplyDelete