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 ‘Graff’, ‘Writing’, ‘Bombing’, or ‘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, or ‘Writers’,
choose a name for themselves that they then proceed to write on any possible
surface and in as many places as they can. Graffiti art is defined in the
Oxford Dictionary as
“Writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a
wall or other surface in a public place.” (Oxford University Press, 2013, 'Oxford
Dictionaries Definition of Graffiti')
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 and 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’. National and international political and economic activity
generated a rise in political and social activism. The Viet Nam War was a major
focus for protest and gained a lot of stigma. New York’s immigration history
meant that the city housed a substantially diverse population in terms of race,
religion, age, and national origin. Due to the city’s expanding population, 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, and in a
city where racially divided neighbourhoods offered drastically different levels
of education and social welfare, 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.
It is important to consider, when studying any artistic movement, the
society in which it existed. The ways in which a neighbourhood operates, the
general outlook on life, and the political and economic views harboured are all
important indicators as to how a movement began.
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, 'Graffiti New York', 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,
'Graffiti New York', 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, 'The Birth of
Graffiti', 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, 'Burning New York',
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, 'Graffiti New York', 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, which was extended, heavily,
to youth culture. The pressure to become someone famous or wealthy was
unavoidable, yet it was a juxtaposing fantasy to the reality of life in
poverty. For teenagers in poorer areas Graffiti was a way to gain fame and
recognition in a way that was appealing and applicable to the lifestyle they
lived.
“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, 'Graffiti New York', 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, had a ghetto tailored sense of
awareness, 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 who may have,
otherwise, been swallowed into it. 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, 'Graffiti New York', 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, especially teenagers who, if not
part of gangs, were likely to have exposure to that lifestyle. 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, 'Graffiti New York', 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,
'Graffiti New York', 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, 'R.I.P. New York Spraycan
Memorials', 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, 'R.I.P. New York Spraycan Memorials', 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.
Fig. 1. (Cooper, M, Sciorra, J.
1994, 'R.I.P. New York Spraycan Memorials', Page 94.)
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 that was still 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 and
it was the birth and popularity of Hip Hop that 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’, was 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.
Fig. 2. (Wikipedia,
(Date Absent), 'Wild Style Movie. Jpg'.)
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, 'Spraycan Art', 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, a life where you had to struggle
to achieve.
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. The
Viet Nam War exposed the USA as a country whose government was willing to
commit terrible atrocities in support of American imperialism. American foreign
policy at the time took great interest, as well, in South America where similar
human rights injustices occurred. Kids,
among other age groups, noticed these happenings and sought to protest and
rebel against their own corrupt system.
“Instinctively, they yearned for an alternative to the body of brains
responsible for the bloodshed in Viet Nam” (Naar, J. 2007, 'The Birth of Graffiti', Page 12.)
Naar makes a compelling point in that it wasn’t just adults affected,
but youth as well. Kids’ awareness of and exposure to global media was on the
rise and, with the social encouragement of mass protest, there was a general
feeling of rebellion. Furthermore, 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 was considerable, if not somewhat founding.
“It was this booming bust which created the conditions kids needed in
order to have their say.” (Naar, J. 2007, 'The
Birth of Graffiti', 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.
