The writing's on the wall... Part Two by Nitricboy

A reply to Nitricboy's Graf vs. Commercialism article by Buford & Susan of Artcrimes
Categorically, many people like to lump "graffiti" into one nice little package. This is fine for the uninitiated. Sort of like talking about "music" as if you could say something that's true across the board for jazz, rock, blues, industrial, noise, and baroque.

To take a general view of graffiti, we find three major categories: political, social and modern. Sometimes these categories cross-pollinate but in essence they dictate three distinct agendas. The political front can be as diverse as the exclamation/defamation of a candidate for public office or the poetic work of the Situationist International ("Underneath the asphalt, the beach!"). The social variety ranges from bathroom humour to declarations of love scrawled on a STOP sign.

Modern Graffiti is the type most erroneously explained. Many cultures and sub-cultures have tried to steal Modern Graffiti away from itself. Advertisers, Hip Hop, Hard Core, skate boarders have all embraced Modern Graffiti to certain degrees. But it is in the act and in the behavior of the writers that Modern Graffiti truly frees itself from any culture.

Understanding this concept we must wrestle with two oxymorons. "Graffiti Artist." "Public Property." Graffiti Writers create graffiti, an artist creates art. Public Property is an ugly joke on all of us. If property belongs to the public, then no public use of the property should be illegal.

Better off calling it "Socially Funded Property" at least you'll be able to sleep better at night.

Truth, is some Graffiti Writers are artistic. Some are fathers, laborers, fast food workers and crossword puzzle solvers. Art may assist technique but the minute it crosses into the intention of the work, the work ceases to be valid as a form of graffiti.

When graffiti flavoring creeps into advertising, crying foul about the appropriation is part of the calculated response. There is no such thing as bad press and controvery never hurt an advertising campaign.

Now, these ad agencies wipe their tears away with currency but what of the writer trying to cash in on their hard-earned skills? Shouldn't we take the stigma off the writers who are making a buck doing graphic design for hire and focus instead on the hypocracy that creates a situation where the writer-artists can't win by following the "law"?

The Big Branding Machine is co-opting graffiti as fast as it can. The writers get the short end of the deal no matter what. They can sell their labour and skill (and if they are lucky, their imagination) to a buyer, which is generally known as "graphic art." Then this graphic art can be used to promote all kinds of things the writer doesn't necessarily endorse.

The writer gets to pay his/her rent, a laudable goal of any worker. Then the press complains, the other writers complain, and scholars scratch their heads and theorize about post-modernism and signifiers. By night, the writers scuffle with the corporations over the billboards -- for the eyes, the prize.

The choices are ugly. Work for a corporate oppressor all the time in a menial position or use one's creative talent to get commission work from the same. Working for social justice organizations, mom-and-pop businesses, the crafts, and farming are the other major choices that spring to mind. These also happen to be the things most likely to be crushed by the multinational megacorps.

Advertising is so ubiquitous that if we notice it at all, we try to re-ignore it. What could be more visually annoying than public advertising nobody had to buy that can't be ignored or understood? What could be more socially confusing in a buy-low/sell-high world than someone advertising a non-product? Writers didn't pay for the space they take, and their most visible product is their talents; yet when they DO sell their product, it's nothing but negative connotations all around. Police show up and arrest them. People who like the product are suspect, surveilled, hassled, hospitalized. Writers are uneasy, worried that anyone's success is their own failure; wanting to redefine success instead; feeling dirty by association.

Most people are outraged when they hear about stakeouts at art galleries. The police have set themselves up as the enemy of the people, not the protectors of same. It is no wonder that the youth have no respect for "the rule of law" since they see so little of it. The cops act like the biggest baddest gang and they do whatever they want to, because they can. This is not what anyone wants and is not in the best interest of society.

What's the way out? Should writers be careful who pays their rent? Should they be careful they are selling their labour only and not the product of their minds or a piece of their soul, a slice of their history? Can you be an advertiser by day and a subvertiser by night? Must everything revolve around the Big Brands? Graffiti existed before advertising. It does not exist simply in opposition, in mimicry, in synergy, or in any other relation to advertising except as a competitor, in fact a real contender, for visual attention. The danger is in the marriage of the two, which might breed a better ad, but maybe not a better writer or a better world.

I would argue that fine art is the product outlet of most interest. There the writer who has an artistic bent can get fame, get up, and have sketching parties to celebrate it. The artwork can be whatever the writer feels like expressing. Its wildness creates its interest and value. Selling the work gets the rent paid without needing to confront the specter of the child chained to the loom, the woman locked to the sewing machine. The successful writer-artist could potentially win the game by becoming what German writers call the "free artist." I think that's what I want to be when I grow up. I toast the artists who have gone before me and I encourage those who can to do.

Buford and Susan of Art Crimes