Core77

wow, looks very promising, can't wait to find time to read this article!

I'm sorry to see one of these "wow I'd never seen graffiti before" articles on my favorite blog. I'm an architect myself and I've written about the topic and given lectures about this "relationship" between "writers" (whatever) and graffiti in the past. I'll review the article in full and make an annotated response. Bombing Modernism? How pretentious!

I think the word bombing refers to the street artists way of saying tagging on a surface.

For example: Me and my friends are planning to go bombing tonight you coming?

I know what bombing means! And tagging and pieces and all that there is to know. what I find very pretentious is the sound of it (even from graffiti epistemics): you can't BOMB modernity, you can't tag a historical period nor an architectural style: bombing modernism is absurdly pretentious. "Holstered with felt tip markers and spray cans, truth was recognized in a colorful show of force and bravado." Truth? What truth are we exactly talking about here? Graffiti started as straight forward bandalism and that's it. You can't intelectualize (from a starbucks filled with smoke) something so common, widespread and just as banal as commercial publicity or whatmay. There's Banksy of course, but there's meaning to it and it's not the typo-glyphics. Traditional "writing", be it pieces or tags, is just another by-product of the modern city. It doesn't question anything, it is by no means radical, nor critical. Just wait for the annotated critique of the text. Please be patient.
J.

Javier,

I agree and look forward to the text, however, where is this Starbucks that allows smoking?

found time, but never knew graffiti would bore me so much, if anyone finishes it, let me know how this one ends

kudos to the author � this is difficult subject to address w/o drawing fire from ardent fans of street writing

despite the scathing review just above, i found the article to be informative. however here�s some input just the same; not too rhetorical, mebbe a question or two...

like JR, this is a tender subject for me, and i share his sense that graffiti is far simpler (at least in terms of motive or intent) than characterized in the article - but to the author's credit, i think some bits were glossed over when making the connection between graffiti and Modernism in the interest of keeping things light. it is highly unlikely that the progenitors of street writing saw their work as directly combating the misplaced optimism of modernity (which is also characterized in a biased manner that I disagree with). this analysis seems like 20/20 hindsight. however, it is significant that the first examples (as deemed by the author) are on the austere walls of modernist spaces � if they were to appear on surfaces w/ some cultural or social significance derived from detail, the internal motive of personal expression and social advocacy might have been overlooked...

I strongly disagree that graffiti is no longer and can no longer be �steeped in�social dynamism�. the author is dead-on about the neutralizing nature of broad-based assimilation, and graffiti certainly plays its part in pushing pop culture in today�s market. but despite being absorbed by the mainstream, it is still not widely accepted the way blue jeans or tattoos eventually worked their way into the most unlikely places and circumstances. its taboo seems far more durable, and to substantiate the argument that graffiti is now impotent at the socio-political level requires a far higher degree of acceptance than at present. as far as its sustainable dynamism goes, we still see plenty of it in New York and predominantly in locations that harbor pockets of cultural vitality that are unique to that portion of the city. I would say that the rapid expansion of graffiti via mass media or pop culture only secured its role as an expedient vehicle for perpetuating underground social dynamics and political struggle through demonstration. it might not be as controversial today from said exposure, but it still has the power to communicate from the offense.

another note: as compelling and well-researched as the author�s examples that populate the latter portion of the essay might be, they fail to cement his position that recent graffiti-based �art� challenges or explores semiotic conventions in the same manner as deconstructive principles. my question here � isn�t it possible, by the author�s own argument, to characterize the mutant examples in the article as further appropriation of graffiti-culture by entities and institutions that are contributing to its impotency (esp the bit about the robot)? instead the author has heralded these examples as noble in their pursuits, and in the end it is his right to be so subjective. however, it seems inconsistent with the care with which other examples from respected academic figures have been employed to give the article a sense of authority.

lastly, casting graffiti as architecture�s pop-culture alter ego is rather far-fetched being the two are in constant competition by definition. I readily admit that there are striking formal similarities between design characterized as �deconstructive� and the more ornamental and distorted tags and burners, but it is all too often that formal similarity is given too much credence, and I think this is mostly due to its accessibility. the kind of meta-thinking that binds the two as partners-in-crime in their quest for re-inventing space is too superficial to hold water, and worse, elides the tense relationship between architecture and graffiti that is critical to providing both with a higher degree of experiential �weight� � it is ironic because this is precisely what the author is lamenting at the end of the essay�

Great article. We did a book on this topic that you might enjoy. Check out 'Graffitecture' at www.front40press.com for more graf exploration and innovation!

Great article. I really enjoyed the observation of spontaneous youth culture rising up to challenge modernist architecture.

Screw those cats doing graffiti for arts sake. The graffiti you speak about is more akin to blues music. The listener at once can perceive through no attempt of their own the authenticity, the "coreness" of the blues simply because of the transcendent quality of the artists to inject their lived experience into and through their music. One does not sing the blues, but lives them.

If your looking for "tension, sincerity or revolutionary messages" that are not open to doubt, then look to places where graffiti has not been discombobulated by the status quo. Think Brasil - yes that is Brasil with an s, not "Microsoft words" anglofied version.
And check this out.

The work of Brasilian artist Alexandre Orion - "He created the images, the project's website explains, "by selectively scraping off layers of black soot deposited on those walls in the short life of this orifice of modernity." Who would of thought that by cleaning off dirt, one could be charged with vandalism, - I guess that by bringing attention to inattention you inevitably piss off some people, mostly totalitarians and bureaucrats.

One among many examples.

http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/automotive-ossuary.html
http://www.alexandreorion.com/ossario/ossario_eng.html

Peace and out.
Dady Sucros