We started the class with a freewrite on Nas' "We're Not Alone," from his latest CD. I posed the question of the ethical dilemma of poison by increments. How does the writer, Nas, justify inclusion of the derogatory term N-- in on this release which has so much political and cultural incite and information that can uplift and inspire. Is it as Farad says, capitalism entering the game--you have to use include poison in order to get played?
Anyway, we read a scholarly essay, "The Politics of Graffiti." Homework is to analyze the premise Craig Castleman makes. Do you agree?
Skim the references cited in Can't Stop when you search the index for Graffiti culture. There are a lot of citations; you don't have to read them all.
Read the first section of Can't Stop, chapters 1-4 (Loop 1). Read the preface and introduction also. Annotate and be prepared to write and respond on Tuesday on-line. We will also make our presentations for the Hip Hop archives on Tuesday, Sept. 9. We will meet in L-202E, this is the lab next to the Open Lab.
Style Wars is the name of the film we watched part of. It is a classic on writing and its place in hip hop culture. As you read about the climate that existed when hip hop culture moved from the underground culture into mainstream society, where do your sympathies lie? Why was it so important for kids to write their names on trains and watch the trains move their names into areas of town they could not visit or had no hopes of acceptance?
Look at the terminology: battle, war...conflict, fight. Why is this the nomenclature?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Kimberly Peterson
English 1B Tues/Thursdays
Friday 09/05/08
"The Politics of Graffiti." Homework is to analyze the premise Craig Castleman makes. Do you agree?
"The Politics of Graffiti," by Craig Castleman discusses the begining of the graffiti era in New York city, dated back to 1972. The problem was at large to the city and Mayor Lindsay was doing all that he could do (by spending millions of tax dollars) to reduce the amount of spray paint that covered the entire city. New york magizine, however, did articles that gave appraisal to these taggings of public property.
Graffiti was seen as obscene, tasteless and done by people with only "mental health problems," (Castlemen 22) in Mayor Lindsays eyes. Goldstien gave the kids positive public attention, "it just may be that the kids who write graffiti are the healthist..." (Castlemen 25).
Most people who were a part of this new culture were younger than 17 years old. This movement spread and covered the entire city, it got so big that the movement basically over took the city. It wasn't the government that was in control anymore, it was the people. In the end as much graffiti is still present this day. The fact is that no matter how much the city tried to get rid of this "problem", their efforts were lost from the begining. It was known that this money that was wasted on covering up the graffiti, did not fix any problems. The only problem was that all of the money that was wasted could not be used on investing on programs to keep the kids off of the streets.
The message Craig Castlemen makes is that it could be any type of movement, and if there are enough people, the people will ultimately be in control. I heard once that no human being is ever suppose to be above the law. In this case in America, to this day with the hip hop movement spurting out from the graffiti movenment, I say we are above the law.
Deon Johnson
English 1B: (Tuesday/ Thursday)
September 07, 2008
“The Politics of Graffiti” Do you agree?
I Do Not Agree with “The Politics of Graffiti”! The purpose of graffiti is to be a visual language that is meant to be heard. One of the main reasons that it is meant to be heard is the environment it is done in. Graffiti has such an unconventional presentation that it makes people listen. It’s bold, exiting and most importantly, illegality. The fact of it being an illegal environment makes people pay attention to it for a number of reasons. People pay attention to it because they want to catch who did it because many times it is in their living environment and they have to clean it up. Graffiti uses social outrage as a microphone in that the more people are outraged by it the louder they are speaking. The artist’s actions are what are speaking and what they are saying is that they can’t be silenced, that they are anti-control or even anti-government
Graffiti is meant to be heard no matter what you are saying. Writers choose some of the most bizarre words to write, which are usually nicknames; things that they believe represent them, or just even a word they thought sounded cool. Many times writers don’t have a direct story or identity to express they just want people to know that they live on this earth and exist with the rest of us. For many writers, just showing they exist is enough for them to say. That’s because even though it doesn’t sound like much it is huge in comparison to the drowned out individual voices in society. It shouldn’t be a shock to people to hear the voice of someone who simply wants to be recognized but if you think about it there really isn’t that many ways of going about getting recognized for just being. This is the beauty of graffiti to me because being is harder than it sounds and being lonely, misunderstood, and silenced is even harder than that to understand. Graffiti is people’s response to those feelings.
The reason graffiti is used as a voice is because of how populations of people like the government and society are looked at from the general public’s view. The government and society are things that the public is part of or involved in, but at the same time the system at which both run makes people realize how little their individual views matter. An example of this that shows up in our society is the media because in most of our forms of entertainment there is a narrow amount of views expressed when the people in our society who watch it may have a perspective that is not represented in the media. Expressing opposition of society through actions speaks louder than the words that no one listened to.
Graffiti is meant to be heard, but not necessarily understood by everyone. It is an elite form of self-expression that is only understood by writer’s peers or people with background knowledge, because most of the times these are the only people who really know what writer’s are trying to express. These factors make it harder for graffiti to be accepted as conventional art. The idea of conventional art is that you can have people with general art knowledge to none look at your work in a gallery setting and in some way be able to critique, understand and identify with the piece. It is hard to do this unless you have background knowledge about graffiti because you don’t have anything to compare it to. This is true with all art, but because of graffiti’s factors of being unconventional, like its presentation, makes it tough for people to even give it a chance and even try to understand. When you put a canvas with graffiti art on it in a gallery setting you miss the aspect of graffiti writing, which takes away the original purpose of graffiti being a visual language meant to be heard through rebellious actions. Many writers don’t even consider graffiti style art on a canvas, graffiti because of its intentional rebelliousness. It is hard to be accepted when much of the public is against graffiti because of its illegality. The illegality kills much of the market for such canvases, making it harder to be placed in a gallery setting because there are no.
The vandalism that occurs makes people question graffiti actually even being art. It is vandalism but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be art also. I believe graffiti is art because of its aspects of aesthetics and expression. Those things definitely outweigh the illegality. I don’t even understand how someone could say that graffiti isn’t art because of laws, when art has been around even way before the idea of government.
The purposes of graffiti to people are to be a visual language that is meant to be heard but not understood by everyone, and to be a form of self-expression that people can use to express any perspective common to them. Most of what people express through graffiti is their voice because in almost everyone’s life there is an aspect of it where their perspective is silenced. Being silenced is the same as not being able to show what you stand for and as people what we stand for is what we live and die for. Graffiti tries to fulfill a void in people that began when they were silenced and ended when they painted. The voices or views of the people within a cultural movement are the purpose of that movement, which proves true in graffiti.
Loren Diesi
English 1B
I wrote a summary, like you said to do in class, and then wrote what I thought about the article at the end.
In 1972, graffiti spreading throughout New York City (more importantly subway graffiti), became an important issue for Mayor John V. Lindsay. It was said that during this time, more than $300,000 was being spent each year to erase graffiti. One council president told reporters that graffiti may be “one of the worst froms of pollution”, and a monthly anti graffiti day was created to reduce graffiti. Mayor Lindsay started creating plans to reduce graffiti and prevent it from happening with anything from arresting and fining anyone with and open spray can, making it illegal to carry spray paint in public, to keeping records of those who purchase spary paint or markers. Other organized groups like the Kings County Council of Jewish War Verterans and Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts organized graffiti clean ups. The budget of all new task forces was estimated to cost $24 million to deface the “paint pollution”. Months later New York Magazine published an article suggesting that graffiti brightened up the city from its normal black and white boring look. After all the money spent on policies and graffiti removal efforts, the city still looked the same and no one complained about the lost cause. The pollution problem was then blamed on numerous sources: judges, social services, and train yard gaurds. From 1975 to 1980 the issue of graffiti died down. In September of 1980, Mayor Lindsay put fences and guard dogs around one of the train yards, and after three months no graffiti was found on the trains. He proposed to create more fence barriers around other train yards, which would cost him $22.4 million.
From reading the quotes from the Mayors and graffiti artists, there seems to have been a miscommunication in what the public likes to see, and what’s really best for the city. To me this article showed that the government really just wants to take things into their own hands, and it seemed like Mayor Lindsay was more interested in his personal belief than what the city wanted. He didn’t bother to try to compromise with artists to find a better solution to the graffiti issue, and instead he ended up wasting money that could have been used on more pressing issues, like violence and poverty.
Benjamin H.
English 1B: (Tues/Thurs)
Sabir
“The Politics of Graffiti” by Graig Castleman:
In my opinion Graig Castleman’s article and its premise can be interpreted in many different ways. I believe that the premise of this article is that media had a great influence involving the art form of graffiti with politics. I do agree with Castleman in that the New York media did play an important role in moving graffiti forward in New York. It all started with the unknown writer Taki 183, and the New York Times publishing an article about this writer. The article revealed the true motive behind him tagging his nickname all over the city, and it turns out that he only did this to past the time during the summer. As soon as this article was released more and more youth got involved with this art form. That same reporter interviewed authority figures that were in charge of controlling the graffiti on the streets and one of them had this to say, “Thus writers under the age of sixteen could only be given a lecture, not a summons, even if they were caught in the act of writing on the walls.” (21). I believe that because many youths knew that they could not get in serious trouble that it was cool to tag your name on the entire city of New York. This is when graffiti took it to a whole new level and this art form was everywhere in the city and it was all because of the media that portrayed graffiti as something that was right to do.
The New York mayor at that time was Mayor John V. Lindsay and when he got involved with graffiti it became a political issue. Mayor Lindsay was quoted many times in the media saying that he despised the art form of graffiti because it ruined the city’s image. The media also was there every time that Mayor Lindsay developed new laws and policies to prevent people from doing graffiti. I believe that these laws and policies didn’t have any influence on the people who were doing this art form on the contrary I think that it fueled them to do more of these all over the city. Again the media is seen here as the one who is pushing graffiti into a bigger deal than it should have been. More people were quoted by various media outlets that hated this art form or who supported graffiti and so it got even more media attention. I don’t think that graffiti was that bad that they had to spend millions to clean and protect the city from people painting on walls and subways. I think that media made graffiti seem as if it was a horrible thing to do and it was just people that had nothing to do in their spare time and wanted to express themselves to the public. Now a days if you are caught doing graffiti there are worst consequences than back then but people still do it anyways even though is not as bad. I believe that Mayor Lindsay took it very personal and so that’s why he tried so hard to get rid of graffiti forever but he wasn’t able to because graffiti still exists to this day.
Aaron Lederer
In “The Politics of Graffiti,” we are told the story of the inner city art that became a movement in the 1970’s from the city government perspective. I can’t say I agree with everything in the article. It really only shows one perspective, so it’s left up to the reader to assume the outlook of the other side.
Instead of summarizing the story, I’ll just give my side. In my opinion, there are two types of graffiti. The first type is the selfish type. This simply involves displaying your name on every possible wall/train you can think of. There’s no depth to the artwork, no message, just a “name.” It’s a way of getting a name for yourself while at the same time pissing off the “establishment.” I’m not a fan of this type of graffiti because it can only cause a negative reaction. On the other hand, the other type of graffiti is one that contains a message. Yes, there is a name in the art as the signature, but each picture encompasses something much bigger than the art itself. A message that could represent, for example, the need for justice. I wrote about this in my response to your Aerosoul blog. Anyways, this type of graffiti is what gets the people thinking. What causes a change. While the change might not always be positive, there is a much greater chance that it will be, or at the least shine a light on a shady situation. If people go around spraying their name everywhere, what does that rebellion do? Waste more tax dollars that lowers the chance of them going to the inner city neighborhoods(not saying they would otherwise)? That’s all I can think of. It’s a rebellion with a cause, but one that won’t drive change. That’s my viewpoint on the subject.
The point of the article was to introduce graffiti as not only something that many people can do but the effects of it. Aside from it being an "artwork" to some, to others it is more of a type of vandalism. The article was about how graffiti users are out of control. Used everywhere and on anything, the cost of money it takes to repair these objects taht have been "tagged" is what is the problem. Aside from that there are things that are inapproriate to younger viewers. Thus why we have rated R movies at movie theatres. In order to help supervise teh young, things need to be restricted which I think in a sense is good and bad. My opinion is I don't necessarily agree with the politics of graffiti however I do believe that the mayor or New york City as a whole has the right to say something. Graffiti is and will always be a free way of expressing one's ideas and thoughts. It is a way to be craetive, to communicate to society, in other words a creative way of communication ( such as songs, books etc.) It's just another form. I agree with the artist at teh museum we went to the other week who said graffiti are for those with no talent. Not the no talent part in that they can't express themselves well but they do it in a bad way. A way not acceptable to the public. Sure, grafitti is a powerful way of getting one's ideas across however when you tag it on things such as trains, public restrooms, trucks etc. It only leaves you with a lack of respect for these "talented" artisits. While what they are saying may be true, they use a means that is not only offensive but unreasonable to the public. An example of this would be just because there are guns out there doesn't mean everyone goes out and shoot people they don't like. Even police officers have restrictions when using there gun. Of course people show that it will be used if necessary, however rarely is it used unless in self defense. What i'm trying to say is Graffiti is selfishness. Not only do they care what people see, but they do it in an area that is not theres. You could technically say that its stealing. Stealing the idea of public safety and visuals that are usually censored for the sake of psychological means in young adults.
Faraj Fayad
9-10:50am
t-th
“The Politics of Graffiti”, written by Graig Castleman, is an article discussing the spark of graffiti in New York City, starting in 1971. The appearance of the message “Taki 183” caught the cities attention as a seventeen year old sprayed his name where ever he happened to be. Inspiring other youths in nearby neighborhoods to follow in his footsteps and creating their own names, tagging began becoming a problem in the city.
The Times article first “presented Taki 183 as an engaging character with a unique and fascinating hobby,” (Castleman 22). Graffiti writers began to increase rapidly and soon writing covered the city. By 1972 more articles came out but not to familiarize the spread of graffiti, but to stop it. Time passed and Times turned against the writing of graffiti, in trying to ban the sale of spray paint to minors. The mayor of New York city, mayor Lindsey, more fed up with graffiti than anyone else in the city, “called for the fining and jailing of anyone caught with an open spray can in any municipal building of facility,” (Castleman 22).
The mayor felt that graffiti was an ugly message and who ever took part in it was mentally challenged. He called upon the help of the citizens of the city in stopping this thoughtless activity which costed $10 million to erase, yet wasn’t half way reduced. The mayor was concerned with the tourist’s opinion about graffiti, and they didn’t like it, calling it “filth sprouting on the walls,” (Castleman 26), which caused him to come up with a plan to prevent the writing, by “increasing police surveillance of lay-up, train yards, and stations,” (Castleman 26).
Everybody blamed each other for not being able to stop the movement. The police blamed the MTA’s graffiti arrest policies, the train police blamed the court, and the MTA blames the transit police for not making as much arrests. Years pass and this problem is still not dealt with, making programs organized to stop this problem a waste of millions of dollars that got them nowhere.
I disagree with this article because it doesn’t have any argument supporting graffiti what so ever, other than the fact that it’s a hobby. Graffiti is a lot more than a waste of time. There are many reasons to why to why within two years of its existence, names covered every corner of the city. It is a movement that shows us the power of togetherness. Besides that, have you ever walked by a graffiti piece without stopping to admire it? Graffiti is art, art is everything, and everything is life.
Aerin O'Leary
English 1B
The article "The Politics of Graffiti," written be Craig Castleman speaks of the rise of the graffiti craze and how it all began in New York City in the early 70's. When we think of graffiti it brings us to invision groups of kids on the streets spray painting there tags and pictures on street side buildings and signs. This to some people, government institution's for example can pose a problem on various levels. Castleman writes about how subway graffiti became a political issue in New York City.
The summer of 1971 the reoccurring message "Taki 183" began to leave fellow New Yorkers guessing what the mysterious tag meant. The New York Times sent one of its reporters to find them meaning. In the end they discovered Taki was an unemployed teenager with nothing better to do. The cost of covering up the graffiti in NYC began to rise and the new method began to become more and more popular with hip hop fans.
Dr. Ronan's, transit policemen described the writers as "insecure cowards" seeking recognition." The article deals with the people who are against graffiti and aim to put people behind bars for it.
The question I would like to pose is, is it seen as an art form, an outlet? In my opinion, it is. So why can't people graffiti their own walls or get canvases? Perhaps the joy is spreading it around for others to see, getting your name out. Regardless of the reason graffiti is still going strong from its birth in the 70's.
John Rawson
English 1B
Politics of Graffiti
In the article, “Politics of Graffiti,” Craig Castleman writes about the rise of graffiti as a political issue starting in the early 1970’s. The first issues of graffiti started with subway graffiti and rose from there. The movement grew through the 1980’s and became a force that could not be stopped.
The article was interesting, I believe that the opinion of the Arthur is unclear; I merely think he was writing it to inform people on the subject. I think the immense pressure and rules put in place by the MTA, Sanford Garelik, and Mayor Lindsay as well as many others, were far too strict and placed graffiti as far too high of a priority. Graffiti is a form of expression and not something you should ever be incarcerated for. I like, however the fact that, as well as writing about all the people who spoke against and hated on graffiti, it also wrote about graffiti pioneer, “Taki183” and his views of graffiti as a form of expression and something that you, “do for yourself.”
I believe that the, “Graffiti war” was a stupid idea and an even worse use of valuable resources and money; those who backed and approved it were very foolish and I cant imagine people seeing this as important enough to spend 24 million dollars to stop something that is such a low priority. Graffiti is a victimless crime that uses money that could help to save people that need it more; victims need that money more than paint for subway trains.
In the reading Craig Castleman references, “This Thing Has Gotten Completely Out of Hand,” a long article by Richard Goldstein. Goldstein praises young writers instead of condemning them.
“It may just be the kids who write graffiti are the healthiest and most assertive people in their neighborhoods.” (Goldstein, 23) He also goes onto speak about the fact that graffiti is a teenage street culture and takes the entire graffiti movement as a positive and suggest that lengths at which people have opposed and fought against graffiti is absurd, I for one agree.
Eder Aragon
The article “The Politics of Graffiti” by Graig Castleman talks about how graffiti became a major problem therefore the government had to launch a war against it. I agree with many of the points cited in the article. There is one part that called my attention the ‘Lindsay Theory where the New York’s major at that time stated that “graffiti writing is related to mental health problems”. It is just curious to me how every time that a new movement raises within youths and politics get involved they always relate it to mental problems. I agree with my classmate Aaron on the idea of the two kinds of graffiti, I live in east Oakland so I can see this everyday, I pass by Fremont High, there is this really nice graffiti wall with an image of Tupac, with wings with the sky and the stars in the background that represent legend man, and the mixing of colors is just fantastic, this is the kind of graffiti that brings life, peace and shine to the neighborhood, that is art and art is to be admired. I remember when we went to that Joyce Gordon exposition, he said me and my colleges we don’t do graffiti we do art, and we tell stories in every single of our paints. That is creativity, talent, innovation, which has a positive purpose.
In the other hand we have the second type of graffiti, or so called ‘taggin’, which has no meaning, its just a hubby, just next to Tupac’s paint you can see, things like “sur 13”, “400’ boyz”, “murderbrothers” and all kind of names all over east Oakland walls. This type of graffiti is the one that people do just because they have spray available, like the people that talk just because they have a mouth, but there is no message, no purpose, and no creativity. In the article talk about “Taki 183”, spread all over New York, which the major called a “insecure coward seeking for recognition. I might agree in this point, I hate seeing names in the wall, because I don’t know who he is, what extraordinary he has done, otherwise I wouldn’t want to remember his name, I only remember the name of the people that I respect. There is one song that’s called “remember the name”, there is one part that says “he doesn’t need his name up in lights, he just wants to heard” but there are reasons to remember a name, talent, power of will, original, etc. not just remember the name of a selfish frustrated loser whose only talent is sink a community into a deeper mediocrity. Graffiti can be a shame in society, but when it comes on its art form it is to be admired.
“The Politics of Graffiti” was an article that really frustrated me. It made me angry how people can appreciate weird forms of art that in a million years I cannot get, yet disapprove against such beautiful works from “America’s Future.” From their point of views, you can argue that most “art” are displayed properly on canvases or inside a studio. However, graffiti being showcased on every surface in the streets is what makes it different. Hip hop never followed the rules, so neither should graffiti. To use so much money on depleting graffiti off the streets, to me, seems like they think that they have money to waste. Instead of improving the city economically, or providing better education, the mayor decides the first step is to “clean up” the city first. Graffiti to some may look like trash, but to others, are brilliant works of art.
I do agree that the New York media helped move graffiti forward. Because of all the media attention that gathered towards graffiti, it helped this trend reached the eyes of other teens and inspired them to continue this talent. The mayor thought that it was simple to clean up an act as long as the rest of the world is against it. However, by thinking this way, she is underestimating the power of a united group. Teens are known for being rebellious and stubborn so no matter how many times their work are erased, the same patterns and colors will splatter the walls again and again.
Post a Comment