duncancumming.co.ukSkip over navigation
"Imagine a city where graffiti wasn't illegal, a city where everybody could draw wherever they liked. Where every street was awash with colours and little phrases. Where standing at a bus stop was never boring. A city that felt like a living and breathing thing which belonged to everybody, not just the estate agents and barons of big business. Imagine a city like that and stop leaning against the wall – its wet." (Banksy 2006).
Culture has been described as "one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language" (Williams 1988; 87). This may perhaps be owing to its complex history, development and interpretation by several different disciplines, as well as the diverse public perception of what they deem identifies them 'culturally' in a globalising world. Of all the varied and complex definitions of the word 'culture', it is the most uncomplicated that to me proved useful: "To put it simply, culture is about 'shared meanings' (Hall 1997; 1). The 'graffiti culture' is ascribed such meaning because graffiti maintains the characteristics of a culture as defined by 'shared meanings'; it is a way of life with divisions and hierarchies, patriotism, a language, a history, socially accepted codes of conduct, laws, an attachment to places and cohesiveness. Many of the graffiti images we consume are the result of a much more profound process than 'mindless vandalism' yet will be condemned according to the negative association they retain. Graffiti writers are explicit in defining their relationship with graffiti. In research it was frequently described as even more than a culture, many describing the constant lure as an 'addiction' in interviews, many not being able to describe it at all:
Interviewer: Would you say you were part of a culture with graffiti?
Semor: "(Long pause) It isn't just a culture… You survive outside of your culture but… what would I do without it? It's so deep in my heart" (Semor, Lovebox Festival: Image 2.1).
Semor, from Germany, has been involved in graffiti for thirteen years and it has given him the opportunity, as it does with many, to travel the world showcasing his work and so his sense of inexpressible attachment to graffiti appears unique. However it is not. All of the graffiti writers, if they had been involved in graffiti for thirteen years, thirty, or three, all felt similarly. Another writer, who owns one of the most popular graffiti paint shops in South London, was equally as impassioned and said graffiti wasn't a culture, but:
"…it is more than a culture, it's a way of life. It's not even about actually doing graffiti; it's about friends like a whole next family who are always there for you. It broadens horizons, makes you open your mind, think outside the box, you realise that almost anything within reality is possible… You just have to be confident and passionate and dedicated. But, yeah through Graffiti culture you experience the maddest craziest loveliest darkest happiest things you will ever know and not just when you're painting. It's a virus, as old school London bomber Mear used to say "it's in the blood" " ([name removed] London)
In this context, graffiti represents the security, inclusion and involvement that perhaps broader culture does not always provide. Culture is not embodied solely in the graffiti images on walls, it is "not so much a set of things… as a set of practices" (Hall 1997; 2). In early stages of research, a dialogue was presented of infatuation and dedication to this 'practice' and it became clear why and how graffiti is bequeathed throughout generations.
In approaching graffiti as a culture, or sub-culture, this chapter will primarily set the scene with an excerpt of participation observation before continuing in assessing the validity of graffiti as being used as a tool to not only reflect UK culture but also to some extent enhance it. Furthermore, I will explore the idea that the place of graffiti holds great significance as to the degree in which it is ascribed cultural value.
In the days approaching Christmas I had not anticipated to be standing, at 1am as agreed, outside an unfamiliar building on the outskirts of the city; cold, alone and quietly cursing that I wasn't researching something else. I could still hear the main street's traffic and hollers from the emptying pub around the corner. My contact arrived with two of his friends who briefly acknowledged me but concentrated on drinking and laughing rowdily. Their excitement was obvious. Gradually they became quiet, adapting to the changing environment from bustling streets and roads to silent walk-ways and eventually a deserted railway line. The place they took me to was not as difficult to access as I had expected. The dangerous feats and subsequent respect gained by graffiti writers who penetrate difficult to access areas does exist but in this case they just wanted to 'get up'.
"This wall was cleaned today. They cleaned a lot of walls recently I think cause those tourists will be arriving for New Year and they (Edinburgh City Council) think this shit'll kill the cities reputation" Anonymous Contact
It was a sensory experience. Every sound was amplified; the rustle of notebooks where their pieces were sketched, the metallic rattle shaking aerosol tins as the internal ball bearing mixed the paint, the clicking of different sized nozzles being taken on and off cans to change the thickness and control of lines, the bursts of spray paint giving the air a chemical smell which had become familiar throughout the course of research. Then other senses were alerted. Fear at every distant car horn, snapping twig or sudden light. It was never taken for granted that this was indeed illegal and showing my matriculation card would not exempt me from being prosecuted with trespassing and vandalism charges. All three writers did their pieces in less than five minutes then started walking further down the railway line. I thanked my contact and agreed to catch up with him soon, cautious that following would take me further from a comforting exit point. They were out all night, bombing, tagging, piecing, the length of the railway and then all the way home.
Two months later, on the train back from Glasgow, I was stuck at a red light just outside of Haymarket and noticed my contact and his friends' names had been removed at the place we had been to. As the train began to move again I noticed another tag on the wall right on the other side of the window. ESTM: The Edinburgh graffiti writer I had interviewed and photographed in London over six months earlier. The notion that I was part of something was compelling and I quickly took a photo on my phone as we pulled away from that wall, that 'place', that ESTM had appropriated as his own.
The venue of my initial phase of research, the Lovebox festival, promised to be the "Ultimate London Festival" with the official review claiming that:
"A few years ago, rockers, ravers and hip-hoppers occupied quite distinct strands of youth culture, separated by clothing, lifestyle, language and attitude. Now, these barriers are breaking down… DJs, reggae, urban and world music are now being enjoyed by the same crowd at the same event" (Elwell-Sutton 2006)
On arriving at the arena in Victoria Park, the entire entrance was dominated by fifteen, twenty metre graffiti walls where one hundred and fifty graffiti writers from across the world had been invited to showcase their work. The Lovebox prides itself on being a distinctly London festival, representative of London and Londoners alike. Interesting, then, was the abundance of space dedicated to graffiti; both in the arena and on publicity material in which the word 'Lovebox' was expressed in a style indicative of graffiti (Figure 3.3). Was graffiti perhaps an invitation to gain an insight as to what symbolic or 'true' i.e. subcultural London looks like? Or perhaps, graffiti was used as a representation of style and dominated the arena entrance to evoke individuals with a sense of being part of a fashionable event, of having fun beyond the restrictions of authority. The reasons behind graffiti being manifested into a specifically London festival may be varied, however it was apparent that this was something the organisers wanted to associate their festival, and so their city, with.
Deutsche (1992) explores the idea that art in public space is a question of democracy asking "Are the artworks for the people? Do they serve their constituencies?" (1992; 34). Graffiti as art, as I imply in using this article, is a precarious notion, however the idea of "public space as inextricably linked to democratic ideals" (Deutsche 1992; 34) is fundamental in reviewing the place of graffiti in the public realm. Graffiti is in no way democratic or representative of the majority culture. It is symbolic of a sub-culture which is unknown and inaccessible to the public. It is, therefore, more easily associated with "a general democratic spirit of equality" (Deutsche 1992; 34). Paradoxically, the explanation as to why graffiti is condemned may be the fundamental reason it is also deemed acceptable in the public sphere: it is representative of 'otherness'. This unknown 'other', as chapter two will explain, may be associated with danger and disorder. However, a force of expression from other social realms may be what the public endeavours to depict in promoting the understanding nature of their society. Graffiti as 'democratic communication' is a problematic as it does not represent the majority view, nor does it particularly communicate anything more than making names known between writers. This phrase may better be applied to the concept of graffiti as reflecting the voices of what people deem unheard youth and lower classes which, in contemporary graffiti, is an untrue assumption.
In a globalising UK society the promotion of all classes and social groups as significant 'others' is vital in advertising our National successes: London is a great multicultural city of equality and inclusion – see here, look at our graffiti. The image of graffiti in a city does not symbolise a National empathy with graffiti writers alone, but with a network of any group of marginalised 'others'; the homeless, ethnic minorities, drug users, prostitutes. Film Director Patrick Keiller explained, when asked about how London is represented, that: "One of the things that (in 1989) led me to think of making a film about it was the relative absence of images of London – both credible images of London at the time, and images of London in general" (Patrick Keiller). In an article written about the film 'London', Keiller (2003) describes how "cultural diversity and richness are synonyms for poverty" in that "wealthy, childless couples living in 300-square meter riverside lofts are unlikely to generate anything like the street life of a community of immigrant families with children, each living in a single room" (2003; 8.) In this context, London culture is not sought to be represented in refined images of prosperity but in what is perceived to be a more vibrant social setting as created by the poorer minority public.
In responding to the question proposed by Deutsche, "Are the artworks for the people? Do they serve their constituencies" (1992; 34), graffiti is an assumed representation of a network of underrepresented groups and serves these constituencies by transcending class boundaries and being used as vehicles to represent the poor, the 'moral culture', as part of the UK image. In reality, graffiti is developing with less association to poverty as it becomes somewhat of a "middle class adventure in their little criminal fantasy land" (Addley 2006; 45). The widespread association with graffiti, class and race is speculative and resounds more as a historically confined opinion oblivious to the current shape graffiti assumes. Graffiti is arguably a form of escapism, and the need to escape is not class or race specific.
Looking for an example of graffiti being used as a positive aspect of UK culture, I wanted to move beyond London as the centre of UK culture. Exploring Liverpool's stance on graffiti appeared an interesting option in that it is due to be the European Capital of Culture in 2008 and has been preparing for this since this was announced in 2003. With the opportunity to showcase its culture and cultural development, Liverpool has not hastened to eradicate the disorder symbolised by the presence of graffiti (Smith 2006), but it has instead "adopted a very pro-active approach to this controversial issue" (www.liverpool.gov.uk). Liverpool City Council has proposed to work 'in partnership' with those responsible for graffiti by arranging a scheme of mutual agreement to where graffiti is permitted to appear.
Youth and community groups such as 'Zap Graffiti' promote graffiti "as positive art form" (www.zapgraffiti.com) in which participants can develop their social and group work skills while having the opportunity to speak with youth workers about any problems they have. Liverpool City Council maintains an element of control in that the more chaotic pieces will not, under the scheme, be allowed to permeate the boundaries of socially acceptable society and still maintain the rapport of being an all inclusive city of diversity in 2008. The disorder of graffiti becomes distinctly ordered.
In the decade since Cresswell maintained the "crucial "Where" of Graffiti" (1996; 34) as spaces people have made meaningful, graffiti culture has evolved both socially and politically. It is now no longer an activity restricted to the excluded and lower class and, as we have seen, authorities are beginning to incorporate it into society as opposed to rejecting it entirely. It is no longer solely representative of chaos and disorder but inclusiveness and social development. Graffiti's acceptance as a cultural artefact is, however, still conditioned by where it is placed in addition to what it looks like.
Tagging is perceived to be the lowest denomination of graffiti owing to the hurried way in which it is complied, disregard for where it is placed and its compulsive reproduction across cityscapes. Andrew Pelling from the London Assemblies Graffiti Committee, in a recent report to the government called to literally wipe out tags in London saying that "our real concentration is on the tagging which is really quite ugly" (BBC 1Xtra). Indeed tags are not as aesthetically pleasing as pieces however their non-acceptance for many is due to their uncontrolled, anarchic nature. It must be acknowledged, however, that graffiti writers themselves have opinions just as varied as the public in scrutinising the quality of graffiti and where it is placed. Some writers do not want to be associated with 'bad' graffiti: "I just like seeing the right piece in the right spot - when something's painted really thoughtfully and sometimes I hate seeing really brainless untalented tagging" ([name removed]: Scrawl Collective). Other writers, however, see the value in tagging as a contributing factor to more universally accepted images. Tags are deemed precursors to the more universally accepted pieces as, without tagging, Toys are unable to develop their techniques to a desirable standard:
"A lot of people look at tagging and think its absolute nonsense but it's not, you know, it's real to the people doing it, it has a meaning to them and to write it off and say "well that's messy and that's art"… it's wrong because people don't understand the culture." (Boyd; BBC 1Extra)
Distinguishing art from vandalism is a common category in which graffiti is acknowledged and defined. Vandalism is considered to be a tag on a phonebox, while art is something choreographed on a temporary wall at the Lovebox Festival. Place is integral to how graffiti is categorised, as one police officer said:
Interviewer: What do you personally think about graffiti?
Policeman: "Some of it is really naff but it all depends really. If you're asking me my own personal opinion… (pause) it just all depends… as long as it isn't offensive and doesn't look out of place in the area that it's in, then me, personally, it wouldn't bother me cause I think some of it's nice art" (Policeman, Lovebox Festival).
The police officer appeared divided and explained that some of the pieces he really liked and, having pointed out an example of his preferred style, I asked him if he would enjoy seeing something like that in the area he lived in. In response he laughed and said "well… not on my doorstep" compounding the idea of graffiti representing different things in accordance to the place it occupies. It is artistic when it is controlled and anarchic when it is not. In explanation of the notorious argument as to whether graffiti is art or vandalism (Powers 1996, Varnedow and Gopnick 1990), [name removed] explained that the binary is logical in that: "… 'art' is a lot friendlier, happier, easier to understand than these graffiti's from this weird dark world… these massive great big colourful things that you can't read and you can't understand" (Pictures on Walls). The ambiguity of graffiti culture in this case is the victim of its own successes. In succeeding in being an anonymous movement, it is condemned to certain places where it is deemed to 'belong'. It is not overtly ambitious to suggest that if the public were more informed as to who graffiti writers are and of the technicalities of their culture, the images would be more readily accepted as opposed to being approached with trepidation or, as is the case, being passed by largely unnoticed.
In distributing a questionnaire among a random sample of sixty individuals, the idea that graffiti becomes 'out of place' when it appears in the wrong context was confirmed. Ten people perceived the second image to be 'out of place', as it's context is a public thoroughfare, while only one classified the first image (Figure 3.3) as such, as the graffiti had no broader context. Interestingly, though, a total of twenty three respondents thought images were 'representative of UK culture', significant in that even those who were ardently against the images presented to them still perceived them to be cultural. One participant who deemed graffiti both 'out of place' and 'part of UK culture' explained:
"It would be good if there was one area these people could express themselves instead of spraying all over the place. It's so in your face these days it doesn't even register, it's as part of our image of the UK as crap weather" (Anonymous Questionnaire Respondent).
This, combined with the view of another twenty individuals that thought these images as 'normal' implies that not only is graffiti constitutive of UK culture but it has perhaps made a 'place' for itself in society and has become, to some extent, institutionalised.
« Chapter 3 | Contents | Chapter 5 »