Filed under: Communication, Urban, Violence, Youth | Tags: graffiti, Los Angeles, war
The war against graffiti is getting stronger and stronger. Los Angeles, as well as Denver and other cities around United States, has been considering new restrictions on the sale of aerosol spray paint cans and etching cream to people under 21 years old. The fight against graffiti also includes reference to gangs, especially related to criminality, violence and drug use among young cultures. As a result, these activities are punishable with fines or prosecuted as felonies or crimes, and in these cases, it could signify several months and even years in prison.
What is the problem about graffiti? The removal of graffiti costs high. The public spending rises to thousand of dollars. Even when governmental authorities declare that these practices deface buildings, public transport and monuments throughout the cities, the main topic is related to budget. City councils could not use that money in other projects and it hurts their relationship with citizenship. However, it is not only an economical cost. This could cause trouble during election times. Besides that, the content of graffiti matters. Graffiti artists not only tag their names or signatures, some of them use impressive designs or slogans to promote ideologies, denounces and countercultural alternatives.
Youth cultures are a paradox. On the one hand, the global market and the media demand them a life of success and consumption. On the other hand, the contemporary societies exclude them. Young people suffer of unemployment, school desertion, police repression, emotional stress and uncertainty about the future. These collectives, as Mexican anthropologist Rossana Reguillo pointed out, have a relation with social change and they also have political struggles on topics as abortion, cultural diversity, sexual tolerance, climate change, drugs use and others. In fact, the content of some graffiti mean an aggression towards the current system and its debilities or principles.
Why do the media and governmental agencies promote graffiti as crime and not as an expression? My hypothesis is that with an increase of the stereotypical information about these “deviant” groups, they could build consent and promote several reactions with a "zero-tolerance" perspective. As Chomsky declares, this is a strategy to control. It is hard to assess if all the graffiti is related to criminality, but it is impossible to deny that in particular contexts is linked to claim territories. However, many young groups just use it like an artistic expression or a life style. This is not necessary wrong. For example, Naomi Klein has identified how corporations and business use graffiti artists to advertise their products too, especially because it is “cool” and it attracts young people. Do we have “legal” graffiti and “illegal” art crimes? Big money rules the market!
1 Comment so far
Leave a comment
“Con el objetivo de enriquecer el Patrimonio Cultural de la Ciudad, se contó con curadores especializados en la técnica del Grafitti. Más de 30 artistas elaboraron “in situ” los cuatro murales de 14 x 8 metros ubicados en los tímpanos de Puán y Carabobo, los cuales fueron intervenidos con distintas disciplinas como ser el street art, stencil, graffiti y character art.”
http://www.buenosaires.gov.ar/areas/planeamiento_obras/noticias/?modulo=ver&item_id=20986&contenido_id=32808&idioma=es
Graffities are sometimes allowed, when it supports politicians. And the same happens with music.
http://leomiau76.blogspot.com/2009/06/los-galgos.html
That is an example.
I wonder if all of these can still be called art.
Comment by Franco August 4, 2009 @ 2:28 am