Is graffiti art? Pollution? Cultural imperialism?
When I was flying out through Montreal for my summer vacation, I listened to a debate on CBC radio about the meaning and value of the urban-American style graffiti that’s popping up everywhere in Canada.
That nation’s biggest city, Toronto, has launched a “crackdown” on graffiti artists.
“We want to ensure that we have clean streets for all the taxpayers of this great city,” Mayor Rob Ford told City Council.
But some councillors suggested that Mr. Ford’s campaign against graffiti artists is already backfiring, with some artists putting up satiric images of the mayor, whom they suggest has provoked those who paint our city, either with our without permission.
As I traveled through Europe, I found that the same basic style of graffiti had spread from Switzerland to Italy to France and Spain. (I took the picture above on the outskirts of Milan.)
This kind of grassroots art is a fascinating phenomenon and it reflects a particular and peculiar hunger for self-expression.
But as I found nearly identical images — that blocky, tagger-style lettering — echoed again and again, I found myself growing sort of bored and depressed.
It was all too much the same, as unoriginal and ubiquitous as McDonald’s golden arches or the Microsoft logo.
I couldn’t help thinking that the uniqueness of wildly different cities — Barcelona, Venice, Paris — was being blurred by artists mimicking an essentially American form of art.
It felt less and less like an expression of the street, more and more an example of the weirdly viral nature of American culture.
It wasn’t all bad, or unoriginal or uninteresting. Some of the graffiti images that I encountered were expressive and raw. 
But for the most part, it just felt like visual pollution.
In some of the coolest, most dynamic and beautiful cities in the world, I was being subjected to the copy-cat work of bored teenagers.
A Wikipedia entry about global graffiti suggests that regional styles and experimentation has begun popping up. And it’s impossible not to be fascinated by the street stylings of British artist Banksy.
But the sad reality is that most of the guerrilla art being generated these days is dross.
Yes, it’s easy to mock politicians and their “clean streets” campaigns, yet this time they’re mostly right.
The best, most honest critical response is to scrape the junk off and give us all a fresh canvas.
Tags: arts
.png)
Just as one person’s trash is another person’s treasure can be said of graffiti.
That said, the problem with graffiti comes when it is done on property without the consent of the property owner. When that happens, it’s like someone putting tattoos on you without your consent.
I have to ditto what Pete said. I have no problem with someone doing grafitti on their own property or on someone else’s property with the consent of the owner. Some of it looks nice and adds to the aesthetics. It’s when they impose that on someone else’s property that it’s wrong.
The point of urban graffiti is to put it where it is not officially allowed.
Some of it is pretty, I don’t really mind it on boxcars for example. All that I know is that the NYC subway system is much much better looking today than it was in 1976, covered with graffiti.
In general its junk. The other problem is that some graffiti is gang related tags about who owns what area.
“But for the most part, it just felt like visual pollution. — But the sad reality is that most of the guerrilla art being generated these days is dross.”
The same can be said for most contemporary art that gets museum or gallery exposure. Unfortunately to get art that is “good”, that communicates and/or contributes something of value, a lot of bad (me too, no imagination, poorly done) art has to get created.
If you create “bad” art on your own property and have the chops to edit out what you show to the public it is just part of the process of getting to “good” art. If you do it in public on other people’s property it is pollution, pure and simple.
Why is it okay for somebody to put up billboards or signs to force their visual aesthetic or their propaganda, on everyone else? Why are we subjected to massive walls of concrete without adornment?
Most graffiti may not be art but I love that people are fighting back against the visual imperialists.
ahaha I love that knuckle, fighting back against the visual imperialists!!!
I actually think that we can peg this moment as the divide between Brian M-the Younger, and Brian M. – the Guy Who Just Doesn’t Get IT Anymore.
I will readily admit that I am too old to understand the current aesthetic. But I get that there is SOMETHING happening. As always happens, the younger generation is forcing a change in thought on the previous generation. And the previous generation reacts the same way every time–you kids get off my lawn!
A little spray paint on buildings is nothing compared to breaking the nose off of the Sphinx, or using Leonardo’s Horse for target practice, or blowing up the Buddhas of Bamian. Get over it gramps!
Sorry to pick on you so much Brian…you know we’ve missed you!
“Something is happening here. What it is, is not exactly clear”. KHL is channeling Stephen Stills. Oh wait, Stephen isn’t dead yet.
KHL, Why is the engineer or architect who builds something with an unadorned wall a “visual imperialist” but rampant graffiti on other people’s property is not “visual pollution”? Why is defacing others property okay but shooting the nose off the Sphinx or dynamiting Buddhas not?
Something was happening in the ’60s and something is happening now. Something is always happening, changing. Romanticizing anti-social acts doesn’t make them an essential part of anything. When I was young in the 60s I recognized that some of what was going down was just wrong, that it had nothing to do with what needed changing. I didn’t participate but I didn’t object because the younger versions of KHL would have called me “gramps” (or something else) and with only one or two exceptions I lacked the self-confidence and maturity to stand up and say “That’s wrong!” If Brian M has crossed any divide it is that he has the chops to say what he thinks and not worry about what others will say. But then I don’t remember when Brian didn’t say what he really thought.
Jim, when someone plows an interstate through your neighborhood, restricts the sunlight that falls on your home and causes 24 hour a day noise that comes in through your window, you can call on me and I’ll be there with my can of spray-paint.
And I know what my tag line will be “Ho-Hum this!”
I don’t think anything is happening at all. Kids just copy each other around the globe, it is not unique at all from what I can tell, some of it is, but graffiti in Atlanta looks like graffiti in St. Paul looks like Graffiti in Dallas looks like graffiti in LA looks like graffiti in Paris looks like Burger King in London and McDonalds in Paris. It is all part of the same culture, pretty soon Nike will put a swish on the graffiti and hire a couple of these guys and the package will be complete, as good as any Che designer tee shirt.
Living in Manhattan, I’m not sure what is more offensive–the graffiti or the commercial billboards and video extravaganzas. Been to Times Square lately? The old marquees promising XXX films were more pleasing than what blares now. Someone is profiting from the commercialization of that space. With graffiti, there is no transaction, no money, just aesthetically questionable visual noise. A pox on all of it–all of it badly overdone.
Billboard’s that would follow some kind of code of restraint would be fine. But that takes government or community boards and a restraint on trade and of course this is America, where you get voted out office for believing in gov’t or regulation. You sure don’t get elected promoting it. Or even appointed (Elizabeth Warren).
Yes I have been to Times Square today with my family. Something that was not advisable in the 70’s when it was a sewer.
I know it is not the fault of graffiti that made much of NYC such a dump during those times, but it was not romantic, it was just a dirty crime filled place and now it is one of the safer cities in the county. Getting rid of graffiti is part of the broken window theory which does work. Graffiti is a sign of decline in any area because it means no one cares about the community.
Mervel–in the 70s, Times Square was not a family destination, to say the least. It was for something else. Families went to Fifth Avenue, Central Park, the Empire State Bldg. Now they go to Times Square for the spectacle and the aggressive commerce. Meanwhile, the peep shows have been spread around town, and you can run across them with your family–as long as they are located, i think 500 feat from a school. In Greenwich village, just past St Joseph’s Catholic Church, when I would walk my son to school, we’d pass a shop with whips and masks and various lingerie items–and the place sold predominantly x-rated video and (I hear!) had those token operated private booths. They (Guiliani) eradicated adult entertainment from TS, but spread in into neighborhoods heretofore absent of it. I’d also add that graffiti is often found in areas where there is much commitment to the community, much proud affection for it, such as the East Village. So I’m not sure it’s a sign of decline but of bad taste, not unlike the bad taste rampant in the New Times Square. If we don’t want public spaces to be a canvas for expression–commercial or personal–we could change that. But then you’d have Havana where, when I was there four years ago, you’d find no advertising anywhere. There were no fat people either, but of course, most everyone wanted serious change. They’d had enough. Sorry for the digression…
I am a total tourist/rube when it comes to New York City so I will defer to your judgment, all of my experiences there have been as a tourist not a resident.
Yeah I think that is interesting that graffiti will be in areas that have a strong sense of community and are not in decline. Are there areas where the graffiti is actually embraced? It just seems like one of those things that once it is controlled and packaged and embraced, it loses it’s edge?
Speaking of Niki and all – I never buy or wear anything that is an advertisement. If someone wants to advertise on me, they had better pay for it.
Speaking of Times Square and NYC in general, I like the old New York. At least is was affordable. If I want to go to Disney Land or World, I will, which I won’t. I don’t need that junk in the city.
You guys need to rent “Bomb it” or maybe “Exit Through the Gift Shop.”
This conversation reminds me of one that could have been about skateboarders 15 years ago. And now Tony Hawk is a gazillionaire super-star, loved round the world.
Or maybe rap music, or hip-hop. What are they toads! Get those hippedy-hoppers off my lawn! And get a haircut!