Introduction
Brightly sprayed graffiti on New York City sub-urban trains during the seventies was seen not merely as senseless dirtiness but as a protest against the demands of cleanliness by those who wanted total order. Rather than simply inscribing anarchic colours on urban infrastructure grids, these graffiti artists created defiant spaces where other marginalized identities could be seen and heard. Graffiti culture refused to die, serving as a visual alternative narrative of counter-elitist restriction on legitimate creative engagement. Unlike elite gallery walls safeguarded by societal norms and art policing, graffiti culture opened up public spaces as ever-changing fields of art, including arts in every mobility and community expression. Such attempts at controlling graffiti have not worked out, showing that world-making continues despite attempts at hierarchical regulation. The background will place analysis within the subcultural theory, visibility politics, and space–culture linkage debate. The succeeding case study and conclusion will show how cultural participation survives oppression or assimilation through instituting the contest context.
Defining Key Concepts
The term ‘culture’ refers to artistic manifestations, identity, ways of life, norms, beliefs, attitudes and other issues among people in society. Based on Bourdieu, “culture is theorized as central aspect of social reproduction”; however, cultural studies theorists emphasize culture’s inherent connections to power relations privileging specific populations at the expense of others (Adorno & Horkheimer 1994). For centuries, the most elitist societal structures and dominant cultural norms have regarded the highest type of culture as fine art paintings done by some genius in an attic while degrading all the creative efforts coming from lower classes of society, such as street graffiti, as insignificant. As Adorno and Horkheimer noted in 1994, the conservative values reinforced elites’ taste into standards resistant to cultural change while embracing nostalgic views of purity.
Tensions resulted in the emergence of graffiti, a cultural practice by communities of colour and working-class youth in their absence in high art spaces (Lachmann, 1988). Graffiti writing usually had its stylistic origins with letters used in 1960s political slogans and murals. Some of this graffiti writing could also be traced to how artists sign their work with spray paint when they scribbled “our names.” Contemporary graffiti quickly started spreading beyond NYC and continued to retain its. Confrontational resonance, despite diversifying into various muralist expressions on different mediums and surfaces and diverse artistic approaches, collectively put into question the official regulations that seek to remove it as nothing more.
Background on Graffiti Emergence
Graffiti emerged from marginalized communities that were not only economically depressed but also suffered from political neglect and questioned why art had become such a highly regulated commodity that was mainly below ground in the 1960s/1970s in New York City. Without any skills in their communities, black and Latino children had to search for other creative platforms, such as written songs from graffiti found on abandoned subways that whites have run since the early ’70s (Lohmann, 2020. The young graffiti pioneers used spray-paint improvisation within the intersection of art, transportation, and inequality, bringing out their desires for identity, visibility, and creation.
Marginalized artists were able to create their own cultural spaces through signature graffiti styles that sometimes incorporated brightly styled nicknames, unlike conventional fine art, which softly comments within rarefied gallery environs. However, primal colour burst forth shrieking crude reproaches against urban development and racism that has been left unattended by officials. Graffiti truth-telling routes travelled millions of miles in opposition to political lies touting the quality of life in dismal cities (Chang, 2007).
Additionally, by default, its canvas defied accepted public and private property rules, determining the acceptable order in society (Ferrell, 1995). The same spaces preferred and disputed—train yards, station walls, bridges—connected diverse city infrastructures. However, from the shared civic spaces of collectives to the graffitied places, these were not equally owned; they indicated areas of free movement and movement control against the imprisoning outsiders of under classes framed as dangerous intruders (MacDowall, 2006). Repeated and persistent graffiti paints into partitioned life otherwise ignored in plain sight.
Analysis: Graffiti Contesting Traditional Cultural Views
As the creative essence of graffiti culture defies elitist notions of allowable cultural engagement, it restages public domains as loci where subaltern voices articulate critical narratives unhampered by the smothering limitations of high-brow gatekeeping. Nonetheless, audacious aesthetic licenses in commandeered citizenship amenity as fabric raise deep Tory ague over lawlessness other than authoritarian control. The course note explains that society used tradition to curb such rudeness through powerhouses that filtered suitable art museum materials out of the popular day-to-day arts around industrial towns. Graffiti artists need the certification to practice or authorise autobiography in this ideology of transportation and buildings vital to private capitals. This run amok, or loose, unbridled insanity on the part of unchecked, boundless, and unrestrained creativity, may lead to chaos of general proportions if it is not stopped.
Proliferating graffiti makes conservatives anxious that broader structural foundations may slip because of such cultural shifts. Such reactionary readings, however, conceal longer artistic lineages. Contemporary urban muralists are rooted in ancient native painting traditions pre-dating European conquest (Baca, 1995). Selective programs of heritage recognition also continue using narratives that exalt ordered and architectural legacies against unruly audacity. However, neglected genealogies of graffiti show that it comes less from the crisis than continuation in longer historical streams of speaking politically with unauthorized art in a place of contention.
Moreover, nostalgic laments over graffiti’s defiant emergence elide their very conditions of possibility: histories of violence that allowed the dislocation of the native population are responsible for those presently privileged notions regarding property and urban development schemes currently used by gentrification. Unsanctioned graffiti highlights inequities within a system that separates cities into tiers of stratified mobility and visibility. These cities are segregated by a terra nullius myth supported by Wall Street’s development project carried out at the expense of what is deemed occupied.
However, prominent museums and elite auctions want to acquire only some of the graffiti to enrich their fine art collection after years of struggle against quality-of-life policing intended to wipe out such manifestations entirely. Nevertheless, even paraphrased aesthetic assimilation in exalted environments concedes a changing outlook on cultural involvement, which does not allow ignoring any fragment of “graffito” as a mere by-product of urban disease. However, when stripped of context and put on display in a gallery, the same form is reduced to being just another sample of decorative art as the original symbolic significance is undermined by the individualistic approach towards it (Lachmann, 1988). While sanitization glosses over graffiti durability as creative solidarity and resistance of spatial alienation on non-elite publics denied excluded cultural spaces. The differences are striking when you compare the sight of an artfully tagged subway car placed in a windowless room behind museum glass to please polite visitors and the scene of untamed new styles spray-painted over every surface of the city’s transit warehouse as territorial signs. The latter uses creative lineage via collaborative exercise in a way impossible to reproduce through exhibition tokenism, trying to take their thoughts about displacements and inequality. Accordingly, graffiti becomes crucial beyond bourgeois amusement and fancy.
It is impossible to reproduce in the permanent formal art institution graffiti’s subculture vitality on the street at its eternal resistance to inclusion, which partly admits even the mentioned phenomenon for temporal spectacle, thus re-calculating some of the critical parameters of cultural legitimization. Graffiti provides them with a tool through which they can continue cultivating identity and ‘ownership’ of neighbourhoods targeted for cultural erasure by gentrification directed against their generation. Marginalized artists are drawn to graffiti’s immediacy, using urban expression to fight against their spatial alienation (Gómez-Peña). They aim at walls for frenetic colour, broadcasting stylized identities and oppositional commentaries via height, volume, and visibility, making up for economic non-presence. Graffiti artists defy prescribed silences of cultural talks, which determine a legitimate engagement in creativity (Iveson, 2013). Despite this, the economic benefits gained from eroding graffiti’s media profit through criminalization or even commercial dilution continue to take away from a broader social context associated with it. However, the subculture’s strength and longevity derive more from this. Graffiti remains a visual opposition to spatial regulation, preventing low-income people from having any kind of presence and visibility. Graffiti’s’ proliferation seems more like an answer to the big question of cultural citizenship than just a teenage fad. For decades, transits have been fighting writers off using trained police dogs and even high-powered cleaning machines (Mungham and Pearson). Which public is it referring to where elites are building endless infrastructure for commercial visibility and marginality becomes an everyday affair by simply calling them all a mob? (Iveson, 2013). Graffiti does not only reveal hidden reality about society but also calls for participation in public life (Gómez-Peña 2005).
Graffiti survives this struggle of definition, culture, and visual imagination space due to style swindling and silent unanimity against wiping off. Dissident graffiti tends to develop spontaneously through instinctive creativity instead of following official authority (Ferrell, 1995). Graffiti artists seek the expression to burst through the motion pathways by infusing disorder into sanitized systematization that is supposed to be used in an appropriate social manner. For the upcoming generations locked out in cultural sites dominated by elite gatekeepers, the charismatic visual vocabularies of graffiti will continue nourishing the identity and the adrenaline of freedom through decades of infrastructure war.
Because it is a form of “graffiti”, it democratizes cultural messaging across contested landscapes. Through continually changing its shape, it rejects the imposition of hierarchy that narrows the scope of vision and legitimate voice to what society deems appropriate to see. Graffiti refuses to die despite false nostalgias and reductive binaries commonly accepted as separate segments. Graffiti writers utilize neon chromatics to cross various sociocracies disjuncture’s on behalf of democracy in contemporary urban centres. In doing so, they pose essential queries regarding who comprises a public space’s shared cultural legacy and civic identity. In doing this, graffiti artists exemplify a form of cultural participation beyond the criticisms of the exclusionary status quo.
References
Baca, J.F., 1995. Whose monument where? Public art in a many-cultured society. Mapping the terrain: New genre public art, pp.131-138.
Castleman, C., 1984. Getting up: subway graffiti in New York. MIT Press.
Chang, J., 2007. Can’t stop won’t stop: A history of the hip-hop generation. St. Martin’s Press.
Ferrell, J., 1995. Urban graffiti: Crime, control, and resistance. Youth & society, 27(1), pp.73-92.
Gómez-Peña, G., 2004. In defense of performance art. Live: Art and performance, pp.76-85.
Iveson, K., 2013. Cities within the city: Do‐it‐yourself urbanism and the right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3), pp.941-956.
Lachmann, R., 1988. Graffiti as career and ideology. American Journal of Sociology, 94(2), pp.229-250.
Lohmann, P., 2020. Historical Graffiti: The State of the Art. Journal of Early Modern Studies, 9, pp.37-57.
MacDowall, L., 2006. In praise of 70K: Cultural heritage and graffiti style. Continuum, 20(4), pp.471-484.
Mungham, G. and Pearson, G., 2023. Introduction: Troubled youth, troubling world. In Working Class Youth Culture (pp. 1-9). Routledge.
Snyder, G.J., 2011. Graffiti lives: Beyond the tag in New York’s urban underground (Vol. 21). NYU Press.
Adorno, T.W. and Horkheimer, M., 1994. The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception. In Philosophers on Film from Bergson to Badiou: A Critical Reader (pp. 80-96). Columbia University Press.
write