Portland, Oregon-based artist Matt McCormick recently created the project "The Subconscious Art of Graffiti Removal." His manifesto is as follows:
"Graffiti removal: the act of removing tags and graffiti by painting over them.
Subconscious art: a product of artistic merit that was created without conscious artistic intentions.
It is no coincidence that funding for “anti-graffiti” campaigns often outweighs funding for the arts. Graffiti removal has subverted the common obstacles blocking creative expression and become one of the more intriguing and important art movements of our time. Emerging from the human psyche and showing characteristics of abstract expressionism, minimalism and Russian constructivism, graffiti removal has secured its place in the history of modern art while being created by artists who are unconscious of their artistic achievements."
[From the artist's web site, http://www.rodeofilmco.com]With this project, I am able to reconcile my thoughts on anti-graffiti movements that appear to be a huge to-do over something that ultimately I believe will hardly be resolved in a diplomatic manner via laws and authoritarian enforcement. Those in favor of graffiti removal from public space are not inherently anti-art, much like pro-choice individuals are not inherently anti-life and vice versa. McCormick's project comes off as a substantial attempt at compromise and even finds meaning, beauty and neutrality for a debate that is otherwise hotly contested in public space by two parties competing for cultural dominance.
By re-interpreting a given situation, the whitewashing of graffiti in the urban environment, McCormick is able to retain some of the power that many taggers and writers feel is lost when their work is dismantled by an authoritarian machine. In many ways, I think that is often the root of the inability to compromise in many of these culture wars - a fear of losing power. Western society is fairly preoccupied with socio-cultural power and who has it, so the over demonstration of one's power over another is often mismanaged by the other side. I'm sure that Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani would be pleased to hear that street artists were seeing their attempts at removing the graffiti as a form of art within itself.
At the bottom of everything, it all comes down to the freedom to express oneself and compete for cultural hegemony. This is a point that I have no choice but to return to when I critically examine public space use in terms of the culture wars. Interestingly though, I've found through my research that this topic really isn't always as easy to boil down to traditionalists versus progressives as some of the others - a good thing and a challenging thing when it comes to thinking in these terms. It's not a progressive property to be in favor of street art - my stance is potentially more radical than anything else. It's not traditionalist in nature to support anti-graffiti legislation, except for perhaps by virtue of government regulation of property and space. The moral argument resides in the realm of censorship and rights to expression.
To take the side of the opposition, I would argue that, beyond the overt complaints on property destruction and breaking the law, graffiti and street art executes the very form of censorship that its advocates condemn when a subway car is whitewashed or a tagger is exiled. By usurping the public space for a specific message or image, it permanently alters the context of that space and renders it impossible for any one else to put anything there without that context beneath it. The name of my blog, "Where Did The Art Go?" is for a spray-painted question that emerged when a long-standing mural near 18th Street in Adams Morgan had been white-washed. A blank canvas now stands where a context-heavy image once resided and its history could not be forgotten with a couple coats of paint. By altering the space like that, many anti-graffiti legislation proponents likely see it as a slippery slope that will ultimately have a negative end (refer back to the advertisements in my previous post.)
You can't really see it from this angle, but the aforementioned mural that bit the dust is along this strip.
And while we're on the subject of Adams Morgan, given the absurd skyrocketing that's going on with housing prices in the neighborhood, several people rejecting street art likely have property values in mind. In 2005, a 3 bedroom penthouse apartment went for over $2 million in the Adams Morgan 'hood. A clean building is better than a tagged building, or at least is worth more, so there's more to the public realm than just having a space where lots of people live and work. As the source of one's livelihood, it should be up to them to determine its appearance, right? One can hardly blame someone for fighting for their property, right?
3 comments:
As someone who collects graffiti art, I find it difficult to reconcile myself between admiration for talented artists who express themselves in public places and aversion for the destruction of private property. If the art is good, I smile. If it looks destructive, I grimace. But who am I to decide what is good art and what was meant to destroy. So I take the self-satisfied route of collecting art that former or wannabe street artists produce for sale. The value of this art is created by the fact that tension still exists for it on the street - that if this art were painted on the side of a building, it might get covered up with white paint.
Great blog. Fascinating take on the graffiti issue.
To me, it pretty simple. Graffiti on private property is destruction of someones property. That's why people don't want it there. It really has nothing to do with cultural hegemony or power. I worked damn hard to pay for my house, and now someone else decides to spray paint it?
Graffiti on publicly owned non-building structures, such as retaining walls, water tanks, etc., are slightly different. We all own these things. In theory, at least, everyone participated in their construction. To allow one person to unilaterally decide how it should be decorated is undemocratic at its base.
Related to this, but applying to ALL graffiti: my wife is a painter. She buys canvases to paint on, then displays them legally and tries to sell them. Sinc they are only displayed in places that people choose to go to see them, they are not forced on anyone. Graffiti artists, on the other hand, force their art on everyone, whether they want to see it or not, with no public input.
Even with an open public debate about what kind of sculpture should be placed in a park, etc., not everyone will ever be happy. But at least everyone was asked.
Graffiti artists don't ask for public input. They impose their art on everyone. To me, that shows a totalitarian mindset, as bad as the mindset government "whitewashers" are accused of having.
On the free speech issue: one's right to free speech ends where someone else right to something else begins. In other words, graffiti artists can paint a piece of plywood and lean it against a wall because it is their plywood, but they can't paint the wall, because it is not their wall. Free speech doesn't trump property rights.
Just my thoughts. Keep writing! It's great!
An Artist can not leave a piece of plywood leaning against a wall if it is not their wall, thats littering. If we start allowing people to essentially have their own art installations without asking permission, how is this fair to all those beautiful sculptures we see in public parks. It strikes me that our society is as much concerned about space availability as they are ownership of property. I personally would be more offended by some bodies institutionalized rendition of "street art" by painting it on a canvas or a piece of timber.
I agree with you that there is a line between freedom of speech and privately owned property. But I think that you should encourage anybody prepared to express their opinion whether they are asked for it or not. I personally find the sight of many public buildings, retaining walls, water tanks etc. as beautiful or offensive as some of the graffiti painted on them. It's a balancing act. In all things there is good and bad aspects, they are subjective, not every body is going to like them but some my love them. Lets not hate on someone being proactive about their expressions and pass it off as undemocratic. If you want a say in how a public water tower looks then get off your ass a go and paint it yourself.
How often are we bombarded with advertising material that we didn't ask for. I don't have erectile disfunction but I sure know the steps necessary to help me if I ever do. The only difference between advertising pollution and graffiti pollution is that an advertising company pays thousands of dollars to force their product onto you, and they of course are trying to make a profit. The beauty of a lot of street art is that often a critique of the world that surrounds us, and its free.
Post a Comment