beautiful monsters

Graffiti

This is just an essay from one of my courses that I wanted to be able to link to (cos I'm really quite tragic like that sometimes...)

Graffiti and Politics on the Streets
What role does graffiti play in the creation and suppression of political realities?

I will begin this essay by explaining my definition of graffiti. I will focus on graffiti as it is used by social movements, particularly in Wellington. I will explore the social and economic conditions that give rise to these social movements, and the factors that force these movements to adopt practices on the margins of legality. I will discuss why graffiti is seen as criminal and how authorities try to suppress it. I will discuss some specific examples of graffiti used by social movements in Wellington, and outline how the messages of these movements have been suppressed. I will discuss whether graffiti is likely to become more or less legitimate in the future.

Phillips (1996) defined graffiti as “institutionally illicit marks in which there has been an attempt to establish some sort of coherent composition.” Phillips noted that while graffiti has been found on ancient sites, the term is now associated primarily with modern urban environments. Graffiti is difficult to limit or control, because almost any media or tools can be adapted and used to create graffiti. Phillips differentiates between cryptic graffiti that communicates to others within a closed community, and political graffiti that aims to communicate a message to a wider audience. In this essay I will be focusing on this later form of graffiti.

Many official bodies and commercial groups regard stickers and pasted posters as closely related to graffiti. Whitford (1992:15) included both of these activities in his list of graffiti types, and argued that posters and stickers caused similar problems to spray-painting and other forms of mark making. For the purpose of this essay I will define graffiti as any message that is illegally applied and that changes the appearance of a public space. I will focus on graffiti that is spray-painted or pasted onto walls, pavements or billboards.

Social movements are connected populations mobilised by a common sense of wrongdoing or a common threat. They have a common discourse that differs from the dominant culture and they conflict with established discourses and structures. Social movements aim to bring about social and political change through the creation of new meanings, practices and institutions. They aim to influence the ideology of individuals and groups, by educating people, using language, images and music to communicate their visions. In their early stages social movements tend to use innovative forms of actions that are on the margins of legality.

Social movements that use graffiti in Wellington include environmental groups, peace activists and the anti-globalisation movement. Tactics these groups use include spray-painting stencils on pavements, altering billboards and displaying posters and stickers in public places. Graffiti has played an important role in the success of social movements in Wellington, for example the peace movement, and Native Forest Action (Hager 1999:81-88).

In order to understand why political graffiti is seen as illegitimate, it is necessary to understand the context of the political and social circumstances that lead to the creation of social movements. Many contemporary social movements have mobilised and united against the threat of economic globalisation, which they see as the cause of many social and environmental abuses (Klein 2001:442). Political power has shifted from governments who may once have been accountable to the population, to huge transnational corporations, controlled by a few wealthy individuals. Public spaces are crammed with corporate advertisements, and these messages are becoming the only acceptable discourse (Klein 2001:281).

Many social movements favour direct action as a way of regaining democratic control within their communities. Most social movements cannot afford to purchase their own advertisements or use other “legitimate” means to communicate (Klein 2001:280 and Hager 1999:81). Graffiti is a low cost media, and has been adopted by many social movements as a way of taking matters into their own hands when other avenues are not available.

Klein (2002:123) argued that the actions of social movements have increasingly been treated as criminal by authorities. Any form of disobedience, including graffiti, has been classified as violent. Some forms of disobedience, such as creating graffiti, may damage property, however this does not constitute violence, as such actions do not injure people or animals. Members of social movements argue that the actions of transnational corporations are violent. Klein (2002:137) claimed that “the right of freedom of expression, so fundamental to our democracy, includes the right not just to speak and communicate, but to be heard.” Graffiti is one way that members of social movements exercise their freedom of speech by expressing opposition to the current political and social situation.

“It is an interesting fact that most scientific research and speculation on deviance concerns itself with the people who break the rules rather than those who make and enforce them. If we are to achieve a full understanding of deviant behaviour, we must get these two foci of inquiry into balance.” – Becker cited in Ferrell (1993:106).

Ferrell (1993:117) argued that “the campaign against graffiti has taught its participants to perceive graffiti as a problem.” By using emotive language and negative images, official bodies and corporations have constructed an image of graffiti as harmful and dangerous (Farrell 1993:134). Graffiti is described as a menacing “scar” spreading across the country and spiralling “out of control” and the graffiti vandal is a dangerous “villain” slinking around in darkness (Ferrell 1993:136).

Ferrell (1993:180) argued that officials create an “aesthetic of authority” and define how a city should look – clean and ordered. Ferrell (1993:185) argues that public spaces are “manifestations of an authoritarian aesthetic” rather than reflections of “the interests of people and their communities.” Graffiti is seen as problematic, not because it is intrinsically ugly, but because it is seen as a violation of ownership, order and control. In extreme cases, graffiti is described as having similar motivations to rape (Ferrell 1993:141). This comparison is unjustified, because while rape aims to control and intimidate, graffiti is a creative action that tries to regain a sense of control.

By constructing graffiti as a crime, officials also construct “victims” - members of the “community” who are “harmed” by graffiti. The people who create graffiti are left out of this definition of “community.” In fact, many people in the community enjoy graffiti. During the Native Forest Action campaign in Wellington, residents saw messages painted on walls “not as graffiti, but more as a community noticeboard...” (Hager 1999:87).

Commercial advertising now dominates the streets of cities all around the globe – it is impossible to escape (Klein 2001:293). Commercial messages change the appearance of public spaces, but they are not seen as graffiti because they are legally sanctioned. Many members of the public may seen advertisements as ugly and offensive, but they are not seen as a problem by officials. Because corporations now have so much political and social control, they have been able to influence what is seen as “acceptable” behaviour.
During the Native Forest Action campaign, Timberlands spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money promoting their viewpoint, and silencing other voices (Hager 1999:81-88). They painted over any graffiti that expressed environmental concerns. The city council, and even the Prime Minister, supported the removal of painted slogans and environmental posters, but tolerated posters created by PR Companies on behalf of Timberlands. As Hager (1999:88) argued “painting a message on a wall and painting out someone else’s message have a superficial similarity. Both use a paintbrush. Both are illegal, although the charge is minor... But ethically they could not be more different: one is exercising freedom of speech, the other is depriving someone else of their freedom of speech.”

Whitford (1992:6) admits that most people make a distinction between “carefully-executed pieces on walls and untidy, indiscriminate graffiti.” However officials seem to see political graffiti as criminal, whether it is carefully executed or not. The public, on the other hand, may respond more positively to tidy and cheerful graffiti.

Some individuals within social movements do create what could be described as “untidy, indiscriminate graffiti.” One example is a message scrawled with red paint across an empty billboard on Victoria St that says “Fuk the USA.” The language used and the messy technique of the graffiti artist means that it is likely that a message of this sort will produce a negative reaction from some people.

Many social movements have been making a conscious effort to create graffiti that is creative and attractive. In the buildup to the 2002 election some members of the GE Free campaign decided that they would not damage private property, but they would use graffiti to brighten up public areas that they saw as ugly. They tried to make their messages positive and enjoyable.
Some campaigners created billboard sized pictures and messages, which were pasted onto empty billboards. These were removed by the council because they could distract motorists and therefore presented a hazard. This is rather ironic, considering the fact that the messages were pasted on billboards that were intended for advertising. Why is a political message more hazardous to motorists than a commercial message?

Other campaigners spray painted carefully designed stencils on pavements. Police and council workers used threats and intimidation to try and prevent the spread of these messages. Many of the stencils were painted over within days, because they were “defacing” public property. Pavements are hardly beautiful, and it could be argued that colourful stencils were an improvement, rather than a defacement. Shortly afterwards, new stencils began appearing with the slogan “approved use of GM is safe.” Exactly the same phrase was used in press statements released by the Life Sciences Network (a pro-GE lobby group) at the time. None of these stencils were painted over. One explanation for this could be that pro-GE groups put pressure on the council to remove GE Free stencils, while pro-GE stencils were tolerated.

More recently, stencils have appeared advertising a website (www.thelink.org.nz) that is run by the council. None of these stencils have been painted out. The fact that certain stencils are removed while others are ignored could be seen as a form of corporate/political censorship.

As social movements gain power and acceptance they tend to move from a few radicals with little influence, to a more powerful, institutionalised movement that is closer to mainstream politics. As the discourses of a social movement become more widely accepted, the movement may succeed in reshaping mainstream political discourses. The practices of social movements may become acceptable. Political actions such as strikes and sit-ins, once considered radical, gradually transitioned into legality or tolerance as the social movements which used them gained political recognition. It is possible, therefore, that graffiti will gradually become accepted at an official level. Tactics that were once seen as shocking and disruptive are now being adopted by ad campaigns (Klein 2001:283).

However it is my view that as many contemporary social movements are actually based around opposition to mainstream politics, these movements will resist moving towards the mainstream. As tactics such as stenciling pavements and touching up billboards become more acceptable, social movements will seek out more radical ways to express their dissent.

It is also possible that instead of the tactics of social movements becoming more legitimate, authorities will seek to increase their control by criminalising more actions and enforcing harsher punishments. This sort of attitude is becoming evident, as police are becoming more aggressive towards dissenting members of the public. The response of many social movements is not to react aggressively or even defensively in return, but to act creatively. This results in scenes that are so ironic they are almost humourous. Protestors who created a community garden in the route of a proposed bypass were almost outnumbered by police, who stood by grimly as the gardeners planted broccoli, sunflowers and native trees.

It is my view that it is possible that the forms of graffiti we are familiar with today may tolerated or even seen as legitimate in the future, but it is also possible that authorities will seek to gain even more control and suppress these voices. However, whatever happens, it seems that new forms of graffiti will continue to challenge the boundaries of legality.

In conclusion, graffiti is adopted by political movements because they do not have access to other ways of communicating their concerns to their fellow citizens. Graffiti arises within the context of social and political inequality as well as unequal access to resources and public spaces. Graffiti is a creative reaction to feelings of powerlessness and marginality, and it is a defiance of official and corporate control. Members of social movements use graffiti as a way of influencing the political reality of the public. Officials and the media use sensational stereotypes to portray graffiti as a violent activity carried out by dangerous criminals. By constructing these myths and trying to suppress graffiti, officials and corporations are expanding their own political and economic domination. They are creating their own political reality and suppressing conflicting political ideologies. Within Wellington, social movements have used innovative and creative forms of graffiti to communicate political messages. These voices have been suppressed by corporations and official bodies, and this denies social movements freedom of speech. As social movements move towards the mainstream, some forms of graffiti may be seen as legitimate or at least tolerated, but some forms of graffiti may be forcefully suppressed. Either of these possibilities will probably result in the creation of more radical forms of graffiti.

Bibliography

Ferrell, Jeff 1993, Crimes of Style; Urban Graffiti and the Politics of Criminality, Garland Publishing, New York.

Hager, Nicky 1999, Secrets and Lies, Craig Potton Publishing, Nelson.

Klein, Naomi 2001, No Logo, Flamingo, Great Britain.

Klein, Naomi 2002, Fences and Windows; dispatches from the front lines of the globalization debate, Flamingo, Great Britain.

Phillips, Susan 1996, The Dictionary of Art: Graffiti Definition, Grove’s Dictionaries Inc. Macmillan Publishers, London,

Whitford, M.J. 1992, Getting Rid of Graffiti; A practical guide to graffiti removal and anti-graffiti protection, E & FN Spon, London.

Posted by Fionnaigh at June 20, 2003 02:10 PM