Street art or graffiti art really is not my area of expertise - not by a long shot - but I do live in Chicago and I do walk by any number of tags and murals regularly, so I wanted to get the conversation started and hear what others think. The debate over art vs. vandalism has raged for ages, and a little local perspective is a new chance to consider the issues. And I'm not talking about just random spray painted words - I'm more interested in the stuff that really gets a passerby's attention.
NBC Chicago News highlighted some elaborate tagging at the Art Institute's Modern Wing, and recently there was a story about some taggers who targeted a home under construction on the near north side right near the Newberry Library. A lot of super-strength power-washing was in order, and the tagging will most likely be erased at a considerable (tax-payer) expense.
MARCH 12 UPDATE:
A story in the Tribune on March 12 covered the death of a Chicago man known as a graffiti artist to some. I wanted to share the story with readers of this blog, particularly those who have been engaging in an ongoing discussion about graffiti and its place and reputation in our art, as well as urban, community. The man who died, Jason Kitchekeg, was only 26. He died after he jumped into the river while trying to escape police who had caught him spray painting with two other men.
I get it - the Art Institute is the center of Chicago's art community,
right? But I don't think defacing the Modern Wing's wall was what
anyone had in mind, and now the wall will never be the same. Plus,
it's a shame someone was actually bold enough to do this to a
much-loved institution that is usually more than willing to serve as an
inspiring, creative center for Chicagoans and visitors alike. I don't
care how much you don't like the steep admission price - tagging the
museum' just isn't being a good sport.
And as for that house on Clark, well, there's no excuse there, even if the place is still under construction...
Chicago banned the sale of spray paint within city limits back in 1995 (one of a handful of Alderman Mell's
(AKA Rod Blagoveich's father-in-law) anti-graffiti accomplishments...)
in an effort to cut down on the ubiquity of graffiti, but obviously,
what a tagger wants, a tagger gets. And not everyone with a can of
spray paint is out to leave a permanent (until power-washed) mark. Spray cans abound, and these stealth folks are fast when
under the cover of nighttime darkness.
So, what's behind the desire to tag private property - or public buildings? How do these
taggers, vandals, artists - whatever you want to call them - get away
with such elaborate, spontaneous murals without being caught? Do we have to have 24-hour security just to prevent this? How do
they pick their targets? What's the difference between painting on a
highway overpass or a private home?
And, do some people love the idea and discovery of spontaneous, sometimes temporary, art? I can think of other examples of art that doesn't last, but usually that means temporary installations, land art, performance art... This is different.
Filed under: art
Tags: Art Institute of Chicago, graffiti, graffiti art, modern wing, street art, tagging, vandalism
That's a good point - sort of a 'not-in-my-backyard' perspective... But what about when graffiti extends to civic/tax-payer supported buildings - or even private institutions - and they still have to pay for the clean up?
And do people like graffiti less, or more, when it's in a controlled setting, like a museum exhibition space?
Misplaced creativity and self indulgence personified.
Hi Ginny. Thank you for inquiring about this debate. I happen to be an expert on graffiti/street art. Rather than asking questions about how graffiti artists get away with what they do, I feel that a whole other set of questions need to be addressed. What is the hidden curriculum in how the Modern Wing functions as an authority on representation in art? What social oppressions continue to systematically marginalize certain communities? How is the assimilation and commodification of the graffiti aesthetic into corporate marketing strategies a reproduction of white privilege? A technocratic public education system that is designed to fail, a corporate discourse as mainstream values, the privatized public space to generate revenue...The conversation shouldn't start with how graffiti is a social nuisance. The conversation needs to begin with: what social nuisances preexist, that would create such a dire situation, in which someone is compelled to extreme measures of gaining agency over one's own identity?
If you are willing to start there, then you will begin to understand the complexity of the largest postmodern art movement you are in the midst of witnessing.
Police officers should not be a part of this conversation. Historically, they enforce conservative values of the aristocracy, which inherently reproduce their hegemony over the masses.
"Graffiti Professor" gives out what might be expected of someone who priveleges graffiti, which is fine of course. However This is what Deywoud Bey [Jerry Saltz's Facebook} just wrote about someone's complaint that there should be more black art in the Whitney, a situation similar to the "marginalization/oppression" perception of "Graffiti Professor."
" I wouldn't put anyone in ANY show '...just because they're black' or anything else. It's about the work, and indeed there are plenty of artists (black included) making strong work that doesn't need to be defended on the basis of race (or gender or sexuality).
Dawoud gets it, for both minorities and art. Neither is helped by a "mercy f***." It is all about the work.
But rstanley, we are still not discussing who gets to construct what qualifies as 'strong work.' There is still a discourse in that phrase. Would you more closely consider my opinion if you learned that I worked at a prestigious art institution like the Louvre? And if so, what would that distinction signify about you?
Thanks for getting in on this rstanley and Graffiti Professor. First, I think everyone is permitted to be a part of a diverse conversation, cops included.
And I take Graffiti Professor's point that there are a few points from which to start the debate. Obviously graffiti art at its most visible, and most effective, tends to an outdoor, concrete canvas. This is a more brazen gesture than most artists make when creating public art, and it therefore sets it apart.
The fact that the this type of art can permanently deface a structure or building seems to often overshadow whatever message is in the tag/images - and then the debate skews towards whether or not someone should tag private property, what's involved for parties that have to clean it up. Another topic that Graffiti Professor raised is whether established art institutions are oppressing artists or making decisions for all. But was that the reason why these taggers targeted the Modern Wing, or did the clean, smooth wall just happen to be the perfect blank slate?
I think 'graffiti as social nuisance' has to be a part of the debate, though certainly not the only one, and I think then that cops would also provide a perspective that is an unavoidable part of the discourse because of the legal nature of tagging.
How much does the tagging location/canvas tie into the 'strength of the work,' since we're touching on that topic too?
LOTS to discuss and to learn! Thanks!
Ginny, you ask a good question, about location and appropriateness. In my best world scenario, graffiti artists would be given spaces by landlords or the city, for temporary or more permanent work. Like Michelangelo, they would, somehow, compete for the space. This would have positive effects on the visual landscape, on the lives of the taggers, and on society.
Meanwhile, I think taggers, if they want "exposure," (as do most artists) should be given advice on how to "work the career," as most hard-working artists do. What graffiti artists do now is rather easy compared to the efforts of other visual artists. It's as if, like ghetto school kids, they are told they can't make it. For me, low expectations are hurting taggers' lives.
rstanley, I agree with you that sanctioned public spaces would be a win-win situation for all parties involved. I have made countless efforts to begin programs like this for Chicago's youth. But, I must disagree with your assumption that graffiti artists are trying to make a career out of their work in the first place. The role of the artist has been, for centuries, to report and make commentary on the society in which he/she is immersed. The notion of making art as a viable career choice is only as new as the industrial revolution, which consequently benchmarks the foundation of the corporate model. And, I must disagree with your opinion on how easy it is to do graffiti. I received my bachelors degree in painting from a university that produces "hard-working artists." And while I received praise from my professors for creating graffiti work that was conceptually grounded in the present and technically pushing boundaries with new materials; my "hard-working" peers were adamant about critiquing how hard it was to access graffiti, both in terms of understanding it and in attempts to making it. I believe that building a healthy body of graffiti work over a long period of time actually helps create interpersonal soft skills like commitment, determination, delayed gratification, proper planning & execution, etc...You also, without any apparent evidence, assume that graffiti artists have low expectations for themselves. Do you know any personally? Have you ever conducted any action-based research? How much of your opinion about yousrelf might you be projecting onto this community as a scapegoat?
Graffiti Professor,
I'm writing a final paper for grad school on graffiti discourse and sort of tracking two different streams: city/government/public outcry at graffiti as crime, gang-related, etc. and the use of graffiti and other alternative arts to "reach" urban youth. I wonder if I might be able to have a conversation with you about this or if you might be able to point me toward some good resources.
Thanks!
Dear prettygraffiti,
I'm interested in what department/field you are writing this for. I am writing a thesis on graffiti myself. These may help
For research that supports graffiti as art: http://graffiti.org/index/talk.html
Romotsky & Romotsky 1975
for resources against graffiti:
http://www.nograffiti.com/
http://www.graffitihurts.org/
I posted a link to another story about graffiti art in Chicago. Unfortunately a young man died while fleeing police after being caught tagging.
reckloos' point about different audiences and the sensibility that the graffiti artist has towards these audiences enlightened the conversation for me.
First, let's not get personal. Although the spirit of your last sentences is hardly objective, you get too personal in the last sentence.
About your point of low expectations. You probably know many more graffiti artists than I do, but, then, I know nothing of your sample. Those I know come from northern Indiana and south Chicago. My comments about low expectations come from both personal knowledge of working with poor people and broken families for over forty years, and, more importantly, from conclusive studies, published everywhere, relating to both adult expectations and self-expectations. I'm absolutely certain you will regret the pile of information you get if you ask your college's Reference Librarian.
By hard working, I meant spending time. Most artists consider art their career, and work many, many hours at it, including the fight to get it recognized. Generally, graffiti artists spend less time making a work, less time fighting for recognition, and fewer years doing art. Although harder to find, research has been done on that, too.
I hope I have clarified my comments. I am a former professor, not a lawyer. I am not taking these postings as adversarial. I tried adversarial. You mostly lose. You and your artists want to win, try another strategy. I do not think graffiti art makes nearly the commentary on society as fine art, since most people dismiss it. Find your skilled graffiti artists, and help them get in the limelight, where their views might reach people in a more receptive mood.
The question of whether graffiti art makes commentary on society, and whether, as rstanley claims, "most people dismiss it," both seem to depend on the artists' intended audience. It may also depend on the commentary they intend to provide to different audiences. Perhaps these artists understand that some people dismiss their work offhand, and thus, they do not direct their message at those folks. Or maybe they are directing a different message to those who dismiss their work than they are to those who are willing to listen. If that is the case, we might consider the commentary differently depending on location. Writers might send a stronger message to those who dismiss their work when they put their work up in more brazen (and maybe offensive) places. Work in obscure locations might appeal to a different audience.
I think Graffiti Professor makes some great points about graffiti as a reflection of who dominates the artistic discourse. I think its absurd to think that the side of the museum was simply the perfect clean canvas for graffiti, especially given the cheeky "modern art" tag included in the work. I think that graffiti artists are keenly aware of where they put their work and who will see it. They also know who will be able to read it, who will be offended by it, etc. Even the frequent criticisms of graffiti - that its narcissistic, etc. - seem to recognize that this type of art represents an attempt by those who are unheard and unseen to seize some control of the discourse. The fact that these artists must shield their identity in order to make their mark widely seen is commentary alone - and evidence that they are interested in sending different messages to those within their community than to those outside it.
Graffiti Professor's comments regarding her/his attempts to make public spaces available and the commodification of this form of art are also reflective of the question of who controls the discourse. These artists have a hard time finding acceptable outlets unless their work is being commercialized. That may be true of all artists, but it seems to be especially true of graffiti artists. If a student from the Art Institute wanted to paint the side of an abandoned building, or for that matter a ramp in a skate park, I don't think they'd have any problem getting approval.
Thanks for continuing the debate! I think I'd like to take your comments and thoughts and pick this up another time, since there are so many sides to examine, and maybe we can get more people to contribute to a productive discussion. There are the practical sides, such as logistics, where graffiti art takes place, and the philosophical: intent, passion, social commentary. Which side would you like to discuss more in depth first? If you know of any more people with whom I should be in touch, just give a shout!