Style Wars discussion

Graffiti Art is an interesting phenomenon that started in the 70’s but took off in the 80’s and still remains a prominent sub-culture. Graffiti of any kind changes an object sometimes Art sometimes something else. These “kids” (I say kids in parenthesis because some of the artists aren’t really kids but for the purposes of the rest of my discussion I will refer to them as such because the majority are young adults or “kids”) in NYC featured in Style Wars changed the aesthetic by trying to out do each other not just in place but in style. The work by these “writers” (how the graffiti artists refer to one another) evolved and got better. They changed the cold look and feel of the concrete, steel and boring look to something with color and interest.

These writers were/are typically (not always) come from what is considered bad areas and poor. I’m not sure if the kids doing this realize, and I’m fairly sure they don’t, that by making the work that they do and “going all city” (having a piece in every part of NYC) they are making their presence known to the world where normally they would be swept under the rug. Most of these artists do what they do because they enjoy it and stay out of real trouble. This also plays into the break dancing culture. Like graffiti Art its an expression of freedom and keeps these people that don’t have much of anything, out of real trouble.

As I mentioned before most of these kids generally come from a poor demographic. Because of this background I think people generally get the purpose of graffiti art wrong. Contemporary tagging, from my experience and background, is a way to show ones territory where graffiti art and “bomb” are the more elaborate and artistic forms. I don’t see it as an attempt at ownership even though the people against it would think so (which is why, in part anyway, I think they dislike it). Now I’m not saying as a whole there aren’t some ideas of ownership but not in the way most people see it. The kids don’t see these spaces and objects as having an owner so they do what they want on it. Affluent/white kids are involved in this culture too. They don’t do it for any other reasons that the “other” kids do it and I think that’s one of the many aspects that makes it interesting. They do it for the same reasons people have always made art in recorded history. They do it to be creative, they do it because they love it and they do it because they are obsessed. I also would go as far as saying that what they do they see as a sport just like football or baseball. The graffiti artist “Banksy” is a contemporary artist that in the same traditions of the kids in this movie makes his art in/on public and private property. Banksy’s art is much more conceptual that the work of the kids in the movie. There are a number of reasons why they differ but to put it simply the purpose of their work isn’t to make a statement. Banksy however, takes this style and brings it to the new age of postmodern conceptual art. He chooses his imagery and place carefully because his work isn’t just about what is being pictured but also what it means as a part of the space. Basically, he could paint pretty pictures about globalization and unjust politics in the world but by making part of the things he’s criticizing it makes a much more powerful statement. The idea of the graffiti art is an exercise of power. Where the kids in the movie don’t see that I’m pretty sure Banksy does. Continuing along with this thread, fine art and public domain, the question of ownership comes up. Not to get too terribly philosophical but do we ever really own anything? I see ownership as more of an agreement in a given society. So I don’t know maybe, just maybe, I’m wrong here but I don’t think anyone owns these public works of graffiti art by the very nature of the tradition. I can’t say that this kind of art changes anything about “ownership” but its presence challenges us to think about it.

Another way these kids in NYC would stay active making their presence known, in a city that would just a soon not have them, was break dancing. Like the graffiti artists they challenged each other to take there art one step further. Not having any other place to practice and work on new moves the breakers took to the streets and parks. To them it was a sport to pass the time and challenge each other.

When a sport is vandalism by nature though, how does one rationalize doing it? One of the interviewed kids rationalized his vandalism by saying (and I’m paraphrasing) that its good work and you (the viewer of the work) can’t disagree with that, so there shouldn’t be a problem. There’s an unstated premise there but ignoring that and getting to the heart of what seems to be going, on from my perspective anyhow, I don’t disagree with his actions just his argument. In a just and moral society where these kids (affluent or not) had a way to be creative without resorting to vandalism I would condemn what they do. However, they don’t so I don’t.

There are some elements to this culture that I don’t care for and by the way the movie was filmed neither did most of the other graffiti artists. “CAP” it would seem, from his actions and interview, does what he does for no other reason but to just do it. He comes off as a graffiti bully and has this attitude that I cant describe as anything other than just being a jerk. Despite his morally corrupt motives and bad attitude this idea of quantity vs. quality comes up. Again I disagree with “CAP,” more is not better than a well-done piece. If you can have both that’s great (“going all city”), but it means nothing if anyone can do it and there’s no real pride in doing it. I get that he wants to put up “more” but why?

Another question this movie brings up is when the graffiti artist shows in a gallery does it still have the same impact? My short answer is NO. The work loses something. It no longer has that public quality for all to view. In the gallery the art crowd sees it and after it’s purchased the owner only sees it and whom they allow. This community quality is where graffiti art gets real strength. The other thing it loses is that urgency that is inherent in all the works. Weather, city officials and other writers are what “destroy” but also keep the form going by continuing to challenge these kids. Finally what the work loses by entering a gallery is the monumentality of the work. Train cars don’t fit in most art galleries let alone a collector’s home and forget about having multiple pieces. Walls aren’t much easier to move/collect.