In this essay, it will be discussing
whether traditional Graffiti has more value than digital Graffiti. To outline a
clear discussion it shall bring up points to expand on. To begin, it shall be
talking about the history of graffiti and how it has taken up new views and its
emergence in different areas of the world.
The history of graffiti or drawings on
objects is to have begun since cave and rock paintings/engravings emerged. This
can be dated back to 40,000 to 10,000 BC times, which is known as the Upper
Palaeolithic period.
The paintings/engravings, discovered to be done by the ‘Magdalenian’, the name
of the location site.
The Chauvet Cave situated in the
Ardeche region of southern France, is a well-known famous prehistoric rock art
site that was discovered in 1994. The most common method used to produce
engravings was using flint and etching a drawing onto the rock. These
engravings/paintings were a form of visual documentation that could have been
done as part of rituals or a way of passing on information to other people that
might have crossed through their area and drawings of animals was what was
mainly seen. The main fact is that these engravings/paintings were placed in a
position where it was available for everyone to see. These paintings/carvings
is the way the people of that time would portray their events of the days or
months.
As time progressed, the Egyptians used
similar methods of telling their stories and lives, this was present around
5000 BCE to 300 AD.
The earliest Egyptian art is found to
be located in the Nile Valley around the Upper Egypt region. This art was
engraved on the cliffs depicting the actions they engaged in with, this was
done in the Palaeolithic period. The Pre-dynastic period, which is what it is
called, saw these engravings being placed on pottery vessels or small stones.
These paintings and engravings from the
Palaeolithic and Egyptian time were possible because these people used the
public spaces or surfaces that were available to them to express on and
document stories that they wanted to tell.
This act of communicating through use
of a public space continued into the time when Hip Hop started to emerge. There
shall be more focus now more on the type of graffiti produced in the Hip Hop
era to modern graffiti seen today.
From the year 1966 onwards, graffiti
was done by political activists that wanted to make statements to the
government and other gangs around their area did graffiti. It was present in
cities like New York, Los Angeles and Philadelphia. A name that was commonly
seen around areas in Philadelphia was the writer, Cornbread. They would leave
their names next to their work to get people to publicize up about them. As
being a writer became more popular, people began to see more tags and graffiti
around their areas. Mainly focused in the area of Brooklyn, writers would use
the subway system as a way of getting their messages across because the train
would travel the city so this way it would reach a number of places and people.
A well known writer around that time in Brooklyn was ‘Friendly Freddie’, his
work would be seen on the subway system and this helped increase his
popularity. There was competition between writers to try to outdo each other
and have more tags. This became a popular activity in Brooklyn area. The form
of graffiti done with the use of spray cans could be called traditional art,
because it came from different communities from different cities practising
similar methods of graffiti on walls and trains. Graffiti to the communities
that were of a higher class than these writers did not see it as art; they saw
it as vandalism and illegal work. Bando, a graffiti artist stated ‘’I have a saying from very long ago.
Graffiti is not vandalism, but a very beautiful crime.’’ pg. 72, Henry Chalfant, 1987. Spraycan Art (Street Graphics / Street Art). First Edition Edition. Thames
& Hudson.
The technique of ‘’bombing’’ can be
described, as painting many surfaces in an area that might be considered
illegal to paint on.
It was an act that the writers enjoyed
doing because it was more valuable to the writers as they were happy and proud
to see their work viewed on the subway trains, though it was risky to find the
time to ‘’bomb’’ these trains, that is what made the act of ‘’bombing’’
appealing. Another reason why graffiti is a notion that brings the idea of
protest and vandalism is because artwork or drawings was seen more in gallery
than on the outside of museum walls and artists that had their work posted up
in galleries were seen as educated and proper. Though youth residents from
rough areas in New York felt ‘’People
will never really understand what graffiti is unless they go to New York to
live surrounded by abandoned buildings and cars that are burnt and stripped and
the City comes out saying graffiti is terrible, but then you look around the
neighbourhood and you’ve got……something positive.’’ Brim pg 17, Henry Chalfant, 1987. Spraycan Art (Street Graphics / Street Art). First Edition Edition. Thames
& Hudson.
Pg 17, Henry Chalfant, 1987. Spraycan Art (Street Graphics / Street Art). First Edition Edition. Thames
& Hudson.
Lee Quinones and Fab 5 Freddy, writers
from New York became well known for their artwork around the city were asked to
exhibit their work in Bruni’s Galleria Medusa in Rome.
Pg
15, Henry Chalfant, 1987. Spraycan Art (Street Graphics /
Street Art).
First Edition Edition. Thames & Hudson.
This is an example of where value of
money has been placed on artwork that belonged in the streets and trains.
Exhibiting these graffiti artwork up in galleries helped reduce the notion of
it being illegal and violent. If graffiti is seen as violent or illegal then
it’s value in society would not be valued but in return it does not reduce the
value of the artist’s work, ‘’Many
parents in the United States disapprove when their children come home wearing
B-boy style clothes…. They say it makes them look like hoodlums. The parents
recognize that this style is symbolic of their children’s allegiance to street
rules.’’ pg 12, Henry Chalfant,
1987. Spraycan Art (Street Graphics /
Street Art).
First Edition Edition. Thames & Hudson.
Graffiti
on walls was seen more since the MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority) tightened
their security and tried to eliminate bombing on trains, murals on walls were
created as a way of bringing the community together. The use of walls was also
a public media outlet for these writers; they helped voice out their opinions
of the political and social system of their city.
People
from the Brooklyn and the Bronx neighbourhood enjoyed seeing their areas
transformed with art surrounding them, ‘’A
different magic was at work here, that of a neighbourhood transformed overnight
by a mysterious hand. Suddenly to come upon a mural by Lee is like finding a
treasure in a cave.’’ Pg 8, Henry
Chalfant, 1987. Spraycan Art (Street Graphics /
Street Art).
First Edition Edition. Thames & Hudson.
pg 90, Henry Chalfant, 1987. Spraycan Art (Street Graphics / Street Art). First Edition Edition. Thames
& Hudson.
Traditional
graffiti that were seen on subway trains; walls and abandoned areas can be seen
as more valuable but not in the sense of money but pride or respect. To the
people living in these different cities and suburbs, the respect they got from
having as many tags around was more important. The skill and time it took to do
these work without getting caught made them value their artwork or drawings
more, using a spray can to create these works is different than using a
computer to create the same image. As technology advanced, graffiti art was not
seen so much in the streets and the youth spent most of their time indoors.
On
the flipside, with the use of technology, digital graffiti began to surface as
seen in the images below.
Graffiti
Technica, is what he is known by, he has created the work shown above and also
been working with photographers to help composite his work into images.
‘’Graffiti has always influenced me since
the first time I saw works from trains on the way to the school... All the back
industrial lots were covered in styles from generic tagging to intricately
designed works. Back and forwards to school gave me loads of time to understand
the styles and colors that were being used. It was so far advanced from
anything that was in the modern culture that it was no wonder that people
didn't understand it.’’
This type of digital graffiti has been
influenced by traditional graffiti, neither is better than the other but both
have different types of value depending on their factors.
Traditional graffiti seen in the
hip-hop culture from the 90s had the artist’s history and stories of their
heritage backgrounds; this is where the artists got their inspiration from and
their style. There was also the topic of politics, which their views were
conveyed through ‘’tagging’’ and ‘’bombing’’ trains or walls. That made the art
‘’raw’’ and ‘’fresh’’ because it was risky. The different styles of graffiti
such as ‘’tagging’’, ‘’throw-ups’’, ‘’pieces’’ and ‘’wildstyle’’ helped define
the different writers so they each had their own identity, for example, Lee
Quinones’ style of writing was using the technique ‘’wildstyle’’. Around that
period, technology was not advanced enough and kids still enjoyed playing
outside and exploring their neighbourhood.
These factors in today’s times does not
match those in the 90s, with advanced technology that allows different types of
computer software to imitate the act of writing. Graffiti Studio is a software
that describes itself as, ‘’ Graffiti Studio is a piece of
software for spraying and drawing graffiti without causing anybody financial
damage.’’ Graffiti Studio -
Freeware - EN - Download.CHIP.eu. 2013. Graffiti
Studio - Freeware - EN - Download.CHIP.eu. [ONLINE] Available at: http://download.chip.eu/en/Graffiti-Studio_1066113.html. [Accessed 18 March 2013].
It states ‘’without causing anybody
financial damage’’, this puts a negative turn on graffiti already because
software is using the negative notion to help promote their software without
capturing the essence and risk that writers experience when they go outside to
find a surface.
Graffiti Technica’s method of using
technology to create his own style of graffiti does not hold the same stories
or heritage, though he has been inspired by the styles from the 90s he has not
taken the risky part. The negative notions that traditional graffiti faced
might not be the same here because he is not vandalising any public surface so
people may not be quick to judge his work from a negative angle. Instead, some
people will see it as good graphic art and be fascinated by the style and
appearance of the work. Since it is seen on a computer screen, it can be said
that there is already the barrier of technology keeping the person from viewing
the work in person on a wall or train because viewing those types of graffiti
in the areas it was mainly seen in the 90s means these people would have to
take the risk of going to that area in New York, Brooklyn and the Bronx were
considered rough boroughs at the time. The feeling of being intimidated is not
present anymore. The fact that it is digital and this generation is used to
seeing work on Internet and computers means that his distribution increases and
reaches a wider audience. The way that writers would get known and have their
work viewed by many people was placing it on trains, these trains travelled
through most of New York and that got people talking about this new type of
art. It would take time but slowly, writers popularity grew so it made sense
that the more ‘’tags’’ or ‘’pieces’’ they drew the more their work would be
recognised if that was the path they wished.
Now there are social networks such as
MySpace that allow pictures to be posted which can later be shared amongst many
other users increasing the amount of people that can view your work, such as
Graffiti Technica’s art.
Here the idea of distribution and
whether this would increase the work’s value can be discussed.
A writer’s work from the 90’s can be
said to be valuable than a digital graffiti artist’s work because it was not
easy to copy or imitate without understanding the different styles and people
who lived outside Brooklyn and the Bronx boroughs could mainly catch a glimpse
of the work each time a train went by. This meant if people enjoyed viewing
these works they would have to wait for a certain train or visit these boroughs
to view more work done by these writers.
Digital graffiti in this modern times,
can be viewed by people from different continents through the use of Internet,
however the work could still be valuable because it might have taken a long
period of time and practise to make it aesthetically pleasing. With the factor
of distribution, it can also be argued with the type of tool used. The digital
graffiti software means you don’t have to buy spray cans of different colours
but just need a computer to be able to operate it or find surfaces to write on.
However, writers from the 90’s had to buy these spray cans to be able to produce
their work and find surfaces to write on which was difficult due to the strict
rules on vandalism.
Both traditional and digital graffiti
is classified as public art because it is meant to be open to the public, ‘’Whether it’s done on trains or walls,
spraycan art is a form of public art. Writers everywhere concur in their desire
to bypass the system and the normal channels for exhibiting art that are more
often than not, closed to them anyway.’’ King Pin ‘’Pg 10, Henry Chalfant, 1987. Spraycan Art
(Street Graphics / Street Art). First Edition Edition. Thames & Hudson’’ , though
just as the spray can art is open to those who take public transport and live
around to the rough areas, digital art is available to those with a computer
and internet connection. Old school writers from the 90’s could consider the
new digital graffiti to be less culturally ‘valuable’ because these digital
artists may not have lived in the similar areas or brought up in these harsh
conditions so some writers might not understand how spray can art can be
similar to digital graffiti, though the main different is that one uses
technology to produce the work.
In conclusion, to decide whether
traditional graffiti art is more valuable than digital media graffiti would
mean that the term ‘value’ should be considered based on specific factors such
as money, culture or society. This is because society always has mixed views
from the youth to the elderly and each has their own story to express through
their art.
If basing the idea traditional graffiti
has more money and culture ‘value’ than digital media graffiti, then that can
be correct. The writers from the 90’s were ‘’proud of the history of the development of graffiti style, of the
ordeals they have had to face to paint trains and the harshness of inner-city
life that has had to come to terms with.’’ pg 9, Henry Chalfant, 1987. Spraycan Art
(Street Graphics / Street Art). First Edition Edition. Thames & Hudson’’
The youth that grew
up around the time graffiti began to be seen on trains and walls valued their
heritage and mastered the skills to prove themselves the best writers of their
town or city so when viewing a writer’s art, it told you their story. These
stories could not be bought with money and these writer’s did not produce the
same art on different walls. ‘’..Style
was part of it, but you had to have a lot of good pieces, hundreds.’’ Pg 25, Henry Chalfant, 1987. Spraycan Art (Street Graphics / Street Art). First Edition Edition. Thames
& Hudson’’
However, for digital media graffiti in
today’s modern times, based on money and culture value trying to sell artwork
that may have the same style as it did from the 90’s but done in a different
method can be hard. It is more special if a small number of people can access
this work, makes it more valuable. Digital graffiti created is just keeping up
with the modern times and can be aesthetically pleasing to this current
generation that have grown up with ever advancing technology so this type of
art work could be in high demand for parts of the youth and elderly culture.
This concludes that traditional art
should not be said to be more value than digital media unless it is placed into
contexts, such as money or culture. Even then, both are different types of art
from different times.
Bibliography:
6) http://www.clickinks.com/all-about-cave-paintings.html
8) Henry
Chalfant, 1987. Spraycan Art (Street
Graphics / Street Art). First Edition Edition. Thames & Hudson.
