duncancumming.co.ukSkip over navigation
The research dilemma I faced was immediate – how may I access a group of people who do not, as far as is publicly concerned, exist? They rarely want to be known beyond the graffiti that represents them and are active at night, cautious not to be seen by the authorities. It is a temptation of the researcher to collaborate with their participants in the field and become an 'insider' (Cresswell 1996). I am familiar with drawing graffiti images and could have conceivably masqueraded as a fellow writer; however I did not feel comfortable with this as a methodology of social research ethically, although it would have provided some intriguing results. Firstly, it implies that there is a truth waiting to be found and that this truth is representational and translatable to broader society (Hammersley 1992). Secondly, masquerading as part of a social group is problematic in that not only does it mean deceiving participants but it is relatively impossible to maintain a professional relationship. In particular when working with a group like graffiti writers, they appreciated an interest but were consistent in keeping boundaries between the researchers and researched. A place 'inside' graffiti culture is exclusive and still not guaranteed even after years of tagging, striving to gain recognition and respect from other writers. Field relationships ought to be friendly yet professional, interactive yet non-intrusive on either faction, understanding yet not over familiar. Striking a balance appears almost a social research technique in itself.
In overcoming the challenge of accessibility, I travelled to London for The Lovebox Weekender festival (22-23 July 2006) which presented itself as an ideal opportunity to meet writers, see their work and create some contacts for further research. The Aerosolics is an organising body that tours the world and asks certain groups of high profile graffiti writers to exhibit their pieces on legal walls in a 'battle' for the 'World Title' (www.aerosolics.com). The Lovebox was dominated with graffiti walls as one hundred and fifty writers were asked to attend and display their pieces. With such a vast congregation of both writers of graffiti and those receptive of its consumption condensed in one place over two days, it was an ideal opportunity to instigate research (Image 3.1) and I was accompanied by photographer, Brian Lamotte, to capture this.
Because of the difficulties in accessing graffiti writers beyond the festival arena, I allowed networks developed from Lovebox interviews to direct my research and stayed in London for a month to pursue these contacts. For example, at the Lovebox one interviewee mentioned the name of a famous London writer, so I then interviewed a writer who knows him and is responsible for selling his work (see Appendix 2), who gave me the number of a community graffiti project I was compelled to investigate who, on interviewing, mentioned a graffiti removal agency that I followed up for a telephone interview. If I had compiled an exhaustive list of those I wanted to talk to in London with corresponding suitable methodologies, I would have almost certainly been unsuccessful. Interviewing is often inappropriate for participants that want to remain anonymous or have time constraints, but gaining access to one writer or group can require the 'nod on' or approval of another. Frequently, interviews were accepted on the basis that I had spoken to writers of high repute or could mention a symbolic name. The internet was essential in accessing writers who did not want to meet and in maintaining contact with previous interviewees. The importance of the internet in propagating graffiti culture is a dissertation in itself and one which I briefly explore in my conclusions.
The creation of knowledge via qualitative social research has long since gained recognition as a legitimate and rigorous methodology (Mikkelsen 1995). However, social research and analysis must be taken to mean more than just non-positivist, non-economical, non-statistical studies. It is a plethora of methodologies and approaches which involve 'participatory' trajectories and exhaustive analysis of results with constant self-reflexivity. To be reflexive is to recognise that humans are laden with their own values. Our choices, of what to research and how we research it, are dictated by who we are and the principles we maintain. Indeed, in choosing to study graffiti as a result of experiences in Chile, my own values were manifested within the research project from the onset. Furthermore, I was faced with a challenge similar to that of MacDonald who was aware of her "power, authority and representational control" (MacDonald 2001; 27) in speaking for a consistently spoken for group; what if I was to misrepresent their identities and misinform opinions? In remedying any personal preconceptions and in resisting the temptation to promote graffiti as a positive activity, I took extensive fieldwork notes and sought the opinions of twelve graffiti writers that occupied diverse levels of importance in the graffiti hierarchy with interviews lasting between half an hour and two hours combined with countless informal conversations when the Dictaphone was turned off. I interviewed three policemen, two at the Lovebox festival and one over the phone. Online correspondence proved essential in accessing six graffiti activists, five in London and one in California and a random sample of sixty members of the public who responded to the questionnaire. As a result of research, my opinions regarding graffiti were considerably challenged and modified so the objective of discarding personal opinions throughout research was visibly realised.
Because research for this dissertation was heavily based in visual analysis i.e. the consumption of graffiti images, it was imperative to constantly question why I felt or thought what I did about the images that I was seeing. What we see is conditioned by what constitutes us; geographically, historically, socially and culturally. Therefore when presented with images, I was conscious to note that every individual would interpret different meanings from them and that we "never look at just one thing; we are always looking at the relation between things and ourselves" (Berger 1973; 9). Instead of assuming individual's perspectives would be consistent with previous graffiti research, I presented sixty individuals with two different images of graffiti and a corresponding questionnaire (see Appendix 1). Because of the nature of images and the very distinct interactive relationship between observer and observed, I did not want to make questionnaires quantifiable, however did give an option to circle descriptive words to facilitate comparison between the two images. The images were purposefully dissimilar (Appendix 1): one of a topless white man in the act of creating graffiti however with no wider visual context and one of a more chaotic graffiti scene on a public street. I was interested to see how individuals would respond to the different styles, the image of an active graffiti writer and the significance of place in contextualising the acceptance or rejection of graffiti images.
Beyond the necessary interviews with graffiti activists, graffiti writers, the police and the public, it was of great benefit to consult someone whose career was centred on visual analysis. As a result, I interviewed film director, Patrick Keiller who is due to start a project with Doreen Massey (1994) about "the production of landscape and images of landscape in terms of mobility, belonging/displacement and current and anticipated future economic change" (Keiller and Massey 2007). I was keen to ask his opinion as to how the same images may be represented and interpreted differently and in particular the significance of London as a venue for this, understandable in that he made a film, 'London' (1994), specifically about 'imagining London'.
Representing the graffiti lifestyle required bridging a considerable void between those whose lives revolve around graffiti and the reader who may not be aware of the complexities involved, or have formed decisions based on symbolic representations. With so many varied and conflicting opinions about graffiti among the graffiti writers, police, activists, media and public, it seemed obvious to do something that would challenge my own preconceptions and give me some real, primary material to work from. Participant observation is, according to Hebdidge and the Chicago School (1982), the methodology of the subcultures. Beyond statistics and the demanding reflexivity of qualitative research, "stories, examples, and interpretive analysis are just as likely to capture the imagination of policy makers and the general public if they are all done well" (Thin 2002; 121). To profit from two years studying Social Anthropology options, and to satisfy an undeniable curiosity, I embarked on a night of participant observation in Edinburgh with graffiti writers on the railway lines. My involvement was restricted to observing without taking notes or overtly questioning the writers in order to be consistent in maintaining boundaries. I do not believe that graffiti as a subject of academic study can be successfully commented on without gaining this knowledge as it provided a central experience through which I mediated my understanding of graffiti culture. What better way to research complex spatial dialectics than in taking myself, unreservedly, 'out of place'.
« Chapter 2 | Contents | Chapter 4 »