1970
– 1990. In what ways has art or design responded to the changing social and
cultural forces of that period?
Graffiti
art, also known as ‘Getting up’ is a street oriented artistic movement that
arose in New York City in the late 1960’s. It is mainly concerned with the use
of spray paint and markers but can exist via a variety of different mediums. Graffiti
artists choose a name for themselves that they then proceed to write in as many
places as they can. Although the art form can occur legally or illegally, it
began as a purely illegal practice and later moved into galleries, homes, and
other private art spaces.
The
1970’s in New York saw a great many social and cultural forces in effect. The
shifts in socio-political views activity caused an increase in the
liberalisation of self-expression and self-fulfilment. New artistic practices
were being accepted and encouraged as people sought to make the city ‘their
own’. Global and domestic events throughout the 20th century generated
a rise in political and social activism. New York’s immigration history meant
that the city housed a substantially diverse population. Due to population rise,
its structural composition, and the nature of New York business practice there
was considerable income inequality. Wealth fluctuated between boroughs and was
considerably lower in ethnic minority areas. Out of this great mix of cultures came
the Graffiti movement.
This
essay seeks to determine the different social and cultural forces that created
and impacted Graffiti art and how they did this. It aims to look at a number of
examples, with reference to credible sources, in order to determine the origins
of Graffiti and how the movement was influenced over the decades.
There
was great poverty in many areas in New York in the 1970’s. Mass immigration in
the early 1900’s had brought many different nationalities to the USA. The
social and racial inequality at the time meant that Black, Hispanic, and
Italian immigrants received the highest levels of unemployment. This poverty
trap was perpetuated by the structure of the city and the boroughs it was split
into. The poorest of these were Queens, The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Harlem. These
neighbourhoods all contained notorious ghettos rife with crime and gang
activity. People were concerned less with art and culture and more with the
potential inability to afford food. The areas did not contain many (if any)
museums or galleries and the education system often lacked the funding to
support art and design in the curriculum. This meant that youths growing up in
those areas had little contact with artistic culture and, hence, few
opportunities to engage in any artistic practices. There were no forms of social
expression available as a release from youths’ everyday lives and so they felt
trapped.
“For
these youth the satisfaction of expressing themselves outside of a school
system that was not in sync with their lifestyle was highly motivating.” (Felisbret,
E. 2009, Page 4.)
When
Graffiti began many kids recognised it as a way to gain recognition and
creative release in a manor suited to their environment and lifestyle. They
were able to travel freely, maintain their rebellious nature and create
something for others to see.
“The
only public art form ever developed by young people was beginning to take
shape.” (Felisbret,
E. 2009, Page 4.)
It
can be seen, therefore, that the constraints of poverty, and the lack of
exposure to different cultural practices as a result, created a great pressure
on youths. The inability for New York kids to express themselves in line with
their roots was frustrating.
“The
writing on the walls and subway cars was a reaction to the times and a
reflection of the conditions in which writers and their civilian families
lived.” (Naar, J.
2007, Page 12.)
The fact that every aspect of society;
education, parents, government, and authority, gave the indication that there
was no escape from this ‘set’ way of life seems to be the main motivating
factor in the Graffiti movement happening. It became a way for working class
kids to say to the upper classes
“Fuck
you! This is who I am. This is what I’m doing.” (Murray, J.T, Murray, K.T.
2006, Page 9.)
Graffiti
became a way for economically disadvantaged kids to pursue a creative form of
expression that didn’t require substantial funding and wasn’t confined to a
space. This absolute freedom and control over ones actions was clearly very
appealing to them as a break from the rigidity and demand of every day life.
Poverty
continued to have an impact on the movement. While the practice of Graffiti was
free, the media used to achieve the art was not. Unlike today, there were no
commercial paint or pen companies supporting Graffiti, and so, Writers had to
use, generally unaffordable, car and decorating spray paint. Stealing or
‘Racking’ became the method used to obtain such materials and quickly became
entrenched in the overall practice of Graffiti.
“NICER:
Racking paint was a must because it wasn’t considered an art form, so nobody
was nurturing you by saying here’s some money for some paint.” (Felisbret,
E. 2009, Page 94.)
This
had an impact on the art form it self as artists were limited to the paint that
they could rob. Sometimes a Writer may not have enough colours or may be low on
paint in general. This encouraged a more conservative use of paint and a more
creative use of the colours to achieve the desired effects.
The
USA, and in particular New York City, has always been a country concerned with
consumerism and the ‘American Dream’. The media constantly promoted consumerism
and the importance of fame. The pressure to become someone famous or wealthy
was unavoidable, yet it was a juxtaposing fantasy to the reality of life in
poverty.
“For
disenfranchised youth living in a society obsessed with Hollywood stars and
highly paid athletes, a different road to fame was indeed a challenge. For
most, fun and fame, or at least visibility, is and was the name of the game.” (Felisbret,
E. 2009, Page 4.)
Prigoff
is right in recognising the, wholly contradictory, idea that young people
should aim to be as rich and famous as possible, even if they had no money and
had to worry about survival all the time instead.
Poverty
created the settings for Graffiti to emerge. The rebellious nature of kids who
knew their streets and who were used to using what little they had to achieve
what they wanted made Graffiti a movement waiting to happen. However, due to
the high levels of crime and gang violence within poorer boroughs, it is
unsurprising that Graffiti maintained an illegal basis. Crime and gangs are
another considerable factor in the founding of Graffiti art but it is important
to note that Graffiti offered a way out of that lifestyle to young people. This
is not to say that graffiti wasn’t a dangerous or risky practice but it
entailed commitment and more honourable values.
“Gangs,
with territorial markings and sometimes violence and crime at their core,
contrasted with crews united in “getting up” and creating art.” (Felisbret,
E. 2009, Page 4.)
Prior
to the existence of Graffiti as an art form, gangs used spray paint as a method
of free and easy advertising. People were used to seeing gang symbols or
slogans on walls in their areas. Most kids are not inherently violent but can
easily be swept up in the stigma of gang activity. It is likely that many
youths experienced a similar situation and saw graffiti as another direction.
Gangs were very exclusive and caused a lot of harmful damage to the community,
while Graffiti offered something else.
“It
was something to do to stay out of trouble ‘cause I wasn’t down with the gangs
that were running around then.” (Felisbret, E. 2009, Page 13.)
Clyde’s
reasoning is important in indicating the prevalence of gang culture and the
commitment of Writers to avoid it.
Many
people chose gang life because it offered them a place in a recognised
organisation bigger than themselves. Once people saw that Graffiti could offer
this, along with the social factor of collaborating with other Writers, many of
them chose creativity.
“Graffiti
writing actually saved lives. It became such an obsession that writers left
gangs” (Felisbret,
E. 2009, Page 4.)
It
is clear that the gang culture, to which many were accustomed, actually drove
potential Writers away because they knew about the consequences and had found a
new outlet. It was a movement that came
from the pressure and pace of inner city life in New York and, as such, bloomed
rapidly into a recognisable artistic practice that attracted a vast number of
highly dedicated practitioners.
Graffiti
art was partially born out of crime and so was influenced by it. Unlike crime,
there are instances in which graffiti has given back to the community and
created awareness about criminal activity. During, and since the subway
Graffiti period Writers dedicated their talent to lost friends and family in
the form of ‘memorial walls’.
“Memorial
walls are reminders of…civil society’s inability or unwillingness to address
the systematic poverty and perverse racism that promote the rampant flow of
drugs and guns into inner-city communities.” (Cooper, M, Sciorra, J.
1994, Page 7.)
Sciorra’s
hard-hitting social commentary is testament to the suffering experienced in the
ghettos of New York. Graffiti is the surface topic, but he goes much deeper
into the structural problems the city faced and how this pain pushed Graffiti
Writers to fight back though their art. Memorials were pieces, done usually in
the area someone died, to commemorate a death, most of which were murders or
crime related deaths. For Writers growing up in the ghetto loss was a common
phenomenon that struck all too often.
“Sometimes
you see people grow up and you try to look out for them and they take a wrong
route.” (Cooper,
M, Sciorra, J. 1994, Page 32.)
Writer
‘Solo’ gives a truthful insight into the normality of gang related
deaths/murders. The way he makes the statement is so matter of fact, an
indication that people were lost so often in that way that that it became
normality. It is clear the conscience of Graffiti Writers was strong as they
wanted to use their art to help remember people. While making a positive mark,
the common exposure to death caused a lot of Writers to pursue a much darker
and more violent style.
--------------------------
pic1
The
piece, done in 1988, is reminiscent of the prolific subway Graffiti era, a part
of Graffiti that had, by then, nearly died out. The heavy and over pronounced
serifs, accompanied by the pastel wash fill and solid black drop shadow,
clearly take influence from 70’s train Graffiti. The imperfections and uneven
composition of this piece stem from the fact that the artist (PER) acquired his
skills from ‘the streets’ not a formal art education. The characteristics of
Graffiti are so original because it was completely separate to any previous
artistic style. The low quality paints used indicate that Graffiti was still a
predominantly ghetto art responding to the constraints of poverty. It can be
seen that the influence of gang culture on Graffiti was strong. Many Graffiti
styles were inspired by the Latino calligraphy used in gang logos, another
instance in which gang culture has had an effect on the art itself.
Graffiti,
in the early 1970’s, although recognised, was still a very youthful and
disjointed movement. There was little structure or reasoning until the birth
and popularity of Hip Hop brought Graffiti into the 80’s to become a more
founded artistic practice. Hip Hop became the institution for Graffiti to exist
in, bringing together its aim to help communities by creating awareness about
the impact of crime and reminding people about their culture.
As
Hip Hop was a ‘street’ movement, it entailed the depiction of ghetto life
through the different practices it supported. According to Afrika Bambaataa
Graffiti, one of the ‘4 pillars of Hip Hop’ is the written word of the streets.
As such, Writers were encouraged to bring their experiences of New York ghetto
life into their art. This can be seen throughout Graffiti’s history; the
backgrounds made to look like crumbling walls or dodgy alleys, the characters
made to look like break dancers and corner boys, the vibrant colours and
effects taken from the shops and people around them.
--------------------------
pic2
Memorial,
or dedication, walls did not always commemorate the death of someone and could
be a celebration of a certain theme/topic of interest to the Writer(s). The
classic ‘Wild Style’ piece, designed for the 1983 film by Writer ‘Zephyr’, is
considered by many to be the
pictorial representation of Hip Hop. Towards the end of the subway era Writers
began to put much more emphasis on their stylistic abilities. Bubble letters or
simple straight letters were considered easy and boring. This brought about the
‘Wild Style’ that New York Graffiti is now so famous for.
“the
letters won’t be separated so you can see them individually-they’ll be crunched
together and one letter becoming part of another” (Chalfant,
H, Prigoff, J. 1987, Page 28.)
It was all about creativity in form and how a
Writer could disguise or connect letters in a way that only other Writers would
recognise and be able to read. The style was translated through all aspects of
Hip Hop (break-dancing, rapping, DJing, and Graffiti) and entailed the
progression of an artist’s style into a quirkier and more original form. As Hip
Hop became more established, and more people became affiliated, the
competitiveness of each practice became ever more prevalent. The ‘Wild Style’
piece boasts a groundbreaking exploration of letter formation and new colour
combinations. Although simple looking by today’s standards, the ‘whipped’
effect of the letters, with fat serifs and add-ons, was new to the time and can
be seen to have great connection to the lively, up-beat attitude surrounding
Hip Hop. The emphasis around the piece, the thick red drips surrounded by a
blue explosion, can be linked to the egotism Hip Hop involves. This is not to
say artists were purely egotistical, but positive competitiveness was always
seen as important. This may stem from the ‘only the strong can survive’
mentality of urban life.
Felisbret
theorises a lot about the drive behind graffiti and what motivates people to go
out and graffiti their surroundings. The drive behind graffiti, he talks about,
is also considered to be the drive behind their desire to improve. The
connection between the rush that hooks them and the appreciation of their own
artistic ability is heavily interlinked.
“Graffiti
culture thrives on competition and collaboration” (Felisbret,
E. 2009, Page 106.)
He
makes a compelling point that the social aspect of graffiti is interlinked with
the friendly desire to compete and push each other to improve. The ‘Wild Style’
piece is testament to this theory in that a group of writers worked together to
design and produce the piece. Similarly, due to the ego of some, a certain
competitiveness was involved that encouraged each artist to make their own
additions. He also talks about the importance of style in the motivation of the
art form and the desire to be unique while still maintaining a connection to
the rest of the graffiti world.
“Pieces
are bold, stylized letters that are enhanced with colour, depth, and a variety
of designs.” (Felisbret, E. 2009, Page
120.)
I
think that Felisbret makes a fantastic point about the ‘addiction’ writers have
to graffiti and the similarities and differences between it and other, more
conventional artistic practices. The competition, he considers, is the main
reason why graffiti has improved so much. This is an accurate explanation in
that original graffiti, from the late 60’s, is nothing more than simple,
hand-written letters on a wall in a colour. Compare this, then, with the ‘Wild
Style’ piece and you notice the use of more stylized letters that boast great
colour and include multiple designs. It is clear, hence, that the advances in
graffiti are, at least, down to the individuals desire to achieve and improve.
The
struggle to achieve, to better oneself, and to better ones community was
evident in all walks of life in New York, not just the ghettos. During the
70’s, people protesting and rebelling subscribed to this ethos massively.
“Instinctively,
they yearned for an alternative to the body of brains responsible for the
bloodshed in Viet Nam” (Naar, J. 2007, Page 12.)
Picket
signs were almost always done with spray paint and anti protest graffiti could
be seen everywhere, giving another indication as to where the use of spray came
from. So, with an appropriate medium, reason for rebellion, and general
encouragement to rebel, the influence of protest on Graffiti is considerable.
“It
was this booming bust which created the conditions kids needed in order to have
their say.” (Naar, J. 2007, Page 12.)
Naar
is also right in saying that the multitude of difficulties experienced by kids
living in the ghettos appear to have given them the motivation to break out of
that cycle and their answer was Graffiti.
It
is clear that there were a number of social and cultural forces during the 70’s
and 80’s that played a part in the beginning of Graffiti. No causal factor was
solely responsible, however, there are varying degrees to which each influenced
the Graffiti movement. One must also consider that many of these forces
occurred at similar time periods and often overlapped in terms of origin and
the reasoning behind them.
Poverty
created a life of struggle and difficulty, which can be seen to be a motivating
factor in the quest for recognition and achievement. Similarly, poorer boroughs
saw a lot of crime due to the hardships faced through low incomes, which, in
turn, encouraged gang activity. Graffiti gave many kids an outlet separate from
gangs and enabled them to freely explore their creativity. Rebellion and
protest stemmed from peoples noticing of a higher power’s wrong action or a
tiredness of a restricting system, which may have been encouraged by the
poverty trap. Writers became rebels of the system in their own way, yet still
maintained the same attitude taken from protest and social action. The Hip Hop
movement could be considered to be the formal foundation for Graffiti to be
acknowledged socially, as it contained various cultural aspects that minority
communities recognised. Black and Hispanic culture was apparent in many ghettos
and fuelled the Hip Hop movement as a collective to bring those ghettos
together. Graffiti played a major part connecting minority youth in New York.
In
conclusion, it is clear that the Graffiti art movement was a response to the
pressures of inner-city working class life, as kids who were rarely encouraged
or supported in any creative outlet, and whom were used to struggling their
whole lives to gain satisfaction in their goals, realised a way to make their
mark on history. Protest and gang Graffiti encouraged the simple and efficient
tags of the 1970’s, a way for teens to get their names seen across New York and
gain fame from it. As Graffiti became more popular Writers became more original
and stylistic, taking inspiration from their surroundings and being forced to
be innovative due to lack of funding or access to quality supplies. The Hip Hop
movement, being a testament to African American culture and promoting positive
values and a new creative drive, gave Graffiti its own culture to pull
influence from. The vibrant colours and eccentric composition of 80’s Graffiti
shows the shift in style to a more confident and proud art, as Hip Hop became
more entrenched in urban American culture. This confidence was carried
worldwide and created the vastly different styles of Graffiti we see around the
world today.
Jospeh Harrison. BAGD, Level 4.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Felisbret, E. (2009) 'Graffiti New York', New York, Abrams.
Murray, J.T, Murray, K.T. (2006) 'Burning New York',
Calafornia, Ginko Press Inc.
Naar, J. (2007) 'The Birth of Graffiti', Munich,
Prestel Verlag.
Cooper, M, Sciorra, J. (1994) 'R.I.P. New York Spraycan
Memorials', London, Thames & Hudson.
Chalfant, H, Prigoff, J. (1987) 'Spraycan Art', London,
Thames & Hudson.
Wikipedia, (Date Absent), 'Wild
Style Movie. Jpg',
[Internet], http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Wild_Style_Movie_.Jpg, [21
Jan 2013].
No comments:
Post a Comment