Graffiti Art: Margins to Center
From Cornbread to Banksy—A Look at Race, Class, and Commercialization
On October 5, 2018, the anonymous graffiti artist Banksy pulled one of his biggest pranks at an art auction: he triggered the self-destruction of his most famous artwork Balloon Girl, the second it sold for $1.4 million (Ellsworth-Jones, 2013). Despite the genre’s current popularity, graffiti art started out quite differently. Juxtaposing two key artists temporally, Cornbread and Banksy, the transformation of graffiti art from a countercultural, marginalized subculture to this commercialized mainstream phenomenon is evident.
Origins
After World War II, deindustrialization transformed the demographics of urban neighborhoods: increasingly concentrated high-poverty areas born out of the racial and class segregation reinforced existing inequalities (McDonald, 2013). It was then that graffiti art began as a niche underground movement in the 1960s. Cornbread, a West Philadelphia teen is cited as the first artist, tagging to make his existence known (Gastman & Neelon, 2011). Graffiti culture became a unifying public medium for African American youth to understand cultural citizenship in a society that had cast them aside, communicating social, racial, and political identities in resistance to dominant establishments.
Artists began tagging subway cars, roofs, bathrooms, and all sorts of public mediums. Continuous documentation in texts like Mailer’s Faith of Graffiti, Chalfant and Cooper’s Subway Art, and movies like Style Wars and Wild Style further propelled the genre’s expansion (McDonald, 2013). Art photographers disseminated copies for anyone and everyone to see. City administrations declared graffiti art as lower-class criminality, yet this actually provided artists more media exposure. The countercultural phenomenon soon entered popular culture (Gastman & Neelon, 2011).
Graffiti Art in Popular Culture
Looking at this transition from margins to center, Fiske’s concept of popular culture can be seen. According to Fiske, popular culture is a process of struggle where popular culture practices are “characterized by creativity of the weak in using the resources provided by a disempowering system while refusing finally to submit to that power” (Fiske, 1989). Graffiti art provides an anonymous visibility to the marginalized. These groups interact with and creatively transform the environment sourcing these racial, socioeconomic, and political tensions into their medium to resist dominating powers and norms. The art reflects the struggle and allows for interpretation and further meaning-making. An avenue for marginalized youth like Cornbread to navigate identity became a cultural revolution in popular culture.
Commercialization
While graffiti art was primarily for marginalized groups in the 1960s, its introduction into the mainstream resulted in the partial loss of focus on the race/class component and moreso on the art’s commercialization. This sentiment is at an all-time high in Banksy’s era. Banksy is a modern anonymous graffiti artist known for his sarcastic and anti-establishment pieces in popular culture. Banksy’s piece Balloon Girl is imprinted on sweaters, posters, postcards, t-shirts, even mugs (Ellsworth-Jones, 2013). This reproduction and commercialization diminish the aura-- “the here and now of the artwork—its unique existence in a particular place”, Benjamin argues (Benjamin, 1936). Standing in front of a tagged wall is different from seeing a photocopy. A wall in West Philadelphia is different from a museum wall. The graffiti art exhibit at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles brings a public and defiant art form to the sterile environment of the museum, plucking these pieces out of the neighborhood and history which the artists intended them to operate with (“Subway Car to Gallery”, 2011). The experience is different. The temporary nature is lost. Graffiti art is also a dynamic conversation where any artist can tag the same wall, altering the original and initiating a conversation between artists. This cannot be captured in just one snapshot disseminated to the masses. Commercialization missed each work’s evolution.
However, this reproduction and distribution did further allow for the documentation, commercialization, and mass consumption. Without it, the masses would not be able to easily access, or access the work at all today. “The technical reproduction can put the copy of the original into situations which would be out of reach for the original itself” (Benjamin, 1936). Forty of Banksy’s original 52 works have been completely whitewashed or sold to the art elites, yet replicas are on t-shirts everywhere (Ellsworth-Jones, 2013). The masses, beyond just those in the neighborhood, can see Banksy’s piece. While this is controversial because the art’s aura and authenticity is lost, increased distribution has absolutely been key to its full integration in the mainstream.
Regaining Focus: Preservation
Despite the reduced focus on race and class with the heavy commercialization of graffiti art in this transition, underlying anti-establishment messages from Cornbread’s era remain and regain some focus on what is lost from commercialization. Despite Banksy being controversial for his participation in the commercialization of his work, he is very much still anti-establishment. He acknowledges this confusion, citing “I love the way capitalism finds a place—even for its enemies like me” (Ellsworth-Jones, 2013, para. 23). Banksy still undermines power structures, calling attention to the superficial values in this age of commodification. Graffiti art is from “the people” still, and they are able to command popular culture products to create their own messages in opposition of current societal dynamics and tensions. There is room for engagement. Banksy resists the commercialization of his work and is still in charge of his own narrative— and when he does profit, he’s done so by directly critiquing this consumerism. Banksy utilizes this room for interpretation and the opportunity to oppose the dominating forces through his art and handling of art. This anti-establishment preservation is representative of both Fiske’s concepts and the historical purpose and usage of graffiti art by the marginalized.
Media attention and literary coverage have pushed the commercialization and mass consumption of graffiti art. While pure usage as an outlet for marginalized racial and class activism has been diluted, anti-establishment messages and negotiation of one’s identities retains some of what is lost. Just, the next time Banksy pulls another stunt, remember this movement’s history and larger societal significance underneath all the commercial masks.
References
*Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Visual Culture: Experiences in Visual Culture.
Ellsworth-Jones, W. (2013, February). The story of Banksy. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/the-story-behind-banksy- 4310304/?all.
*Fiske, J. (1989). Commodities and culture. In Understanding popular culture (pp. 23-47). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gastman, R., & Neelon, C. (2011). The history of American graffiti. New York, NY: Harper Design.
McDonald, F. (2013). The popular history of graffiti: from the ancient world to the present. New York: Skyhorse Publishing.
'The History of American Graffiti:' From Subway Car to Gallery. (2011, March 31). Retrieved fromhttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/the-history-of-american-graffiti-from-subway-car-to-gallery.
Josephine Cheng
ReplyDeleteI agree with Robin Hu that graffiti acts as a form of social visibility otherwise unavailable for socially marginalized groups. In particular, I find Hu's analysis of how graffiti's anonymity aligns with Fiske's concept of culture as an active feedback system to be particularly intriguing. I would like to further extend Hu's point on graffiti's inherent anonymity to integrate Lethem's concept of cultural plagiarism. As Hu notes, anonymity allows marginalized groups to undermine and creatively utilize the environment shaped by dominant powers. In addition, I believe it also allows other marginalized groups or even the regular masses whom resonate with the artwork to imitate it, appropriate it, and in other words, make use of the art they love. The lack of an official "originator" or "creator", for an anonymous piece means there is no such thing as an "unoriginal" piece of work. As soon as the graffiti piece is completed on an object, it is no longer property of the artist, but property of the public, and can be treated and utilized as such. While this reproduction and dissemination is often used for non-commercial purposes, in many cases, it is capitalized upon by larger institutions for commercial or display purposes as well. This would be the case for Banksy, whose identity still remains unknown, despite his present fame. However, commercialization of does not necessarily mean that the art loses its value to communities. As Hu notes, "Banksy still undermines power structures, calling attention to the superficial values in this age of commodification." Even when printed across T-shirts and mugs as a commodity to be sold, the anonymity of Banksy as an artist enables people to better use his artwork to control popular culture products and create their own meanings. Examples would be other artists imitating or altering his art, images of edited versions of his art circulating online, or even people creating memes inspired by Banksy's work. In this manner, graffiti's inherent anonymity supports both Fiske and Lethem's concepts of popular culture.
Isabella Yu:
ReplyDeleteI really liked how this post discusses the concept of aura in relation to graffiti art, because the aura of “low” street art takes on a different meaning compared to the aura of traditional high art. Walter Benjamin’s original writing on aura focused on elite art displayed in prestigious museums. These cultural institutions preserved the aura of high art because people could travel to physically see the original work and its unique existence in a particular place. However, whereas museums preserve the aura of high art, they diminish the aura of street art. As written in this post, “A wall in West Philadelphia is different from a museum wall. The graffiti art exhibit at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles brings a public and defiant art form to the sterile environment of the museum, plucking these pieces out of the neighborhood and history which the artists intended them to operate with.” Compared to an easily movable painting on canvas, the aura of street art extends beyond the physical paint on a blank space. Graffiti is situated in the rich cultural, historical, and sociopolitical context of urban spaces. Even if the wall of a particular street mural is removed perfectly with all the original paint intact and placed in a museum, the aura of the mural is still diminished because the artwork loses meaning when it is away from its original urban space. In contrast, moving a famous high art painting from the artist's studio to a museum or from one museum to another doesn’t depreciate the painting’s aura as significantly.
Hi Robin,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your great and reader-friendly post. I believe graffiti is a good example of the transformation of pop culture as well as a good example for Fiske (1989)'s argument that "popular culture is a process of struggle". It also speaks to Storey (2009)'s point that "popular culture as a site of struggle between the 'resistance' of subordinate groups in society and the forces of 'incorporation' operating the interests of dominant groups in society". The content and form of some graffiti provide a sense of rebellion, and as you mention, they "interact with and creatively transform the environment sourcing these racial, socioeconomic, and political tensions into their medium". The "struggle" and "resistance" are well demonstrated here. Those artists are expressing their resistance through anonymous art creation on the streets, and I believe this might be a way to incorporate with dominance.
You make great points combining with Benjamin's argument, and I agree graffiti lose auras when they are commercialized and imprinted on other media, specifically due to the materials and spaces graffiti rely on. I also believe that there are extra values when Banksy's work is reproduced and spread (e.g. the influence on other artists or audiences as Josephine has mentioned), and in this way what he tries to express about race and class can reach more audiences. I wonder if culture industry has or is going to have some impact on his narrative of work or the process of reproduction and spreading, and that makes him more willing to find a terrain of preservation.
References
Fiske, J. (1989). Understanding popular culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
Storey, J. (2009). Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
Zejun Wu
Srinidhi Ramakrishna
ReplyDeleteHi!
I really liked your analysis of how graffiti art can function as an avenue for uniquely political self-expression of marginalized communities – it was especially well-written and clearly supported. Although this is beyond the scope of the blog post, I think it would be especially interesting to also see how semiotic analysis could be applied to various examples of graffiti art, building on the work done by Hall. You write about graffiti being a way to express ‘cultural citizenship’ and source tensions to ‘resist dominating powers’, but are these results simply due to the act of creating graffiti (an illegal/establishment-defying act in and of itself), or are these results expressed in the art and content as well? What symbols and/or ideas tend to be expressed in graffiti art, and can they be in conversation with each other as semiotic, intertextual symbols?
You also talk about the reproduction of graffiti, especially in places like museums. A critique of this idea can be connected to Perl’s condemnation of the Barnes Foundation’s move to Center City, who argued that the move distorted the original vision of the artist/curator, and cheapens the viewer’s experience in seeing the art. The same could be said of the distribution of graffiti art in museums – by taking the art out of the communities and structures they were originally painted upon, the art can no longer be read as a commentary on the community around them, or as a living, evolving object.
I’m also interested in knowing how graffiti is uniquely tied to its illegality. Would it be as potent a way for marginalized peoples to express ‘cultural citizenship’ if it were allowed? Is its status as a process of struggle, like Fiske would say, wrapped up in the fact that the establishment does not allow it, or would it still be a radically political act otherwise?
To summarize, I loved your piece and it has raised a lot of really interesting questions in my mind that’ll keep me thinking about the purpose and power of graffiti!
Firstly, I love this topic so much! Graffiti is such a fitting topic for this prompt, so my interest was piqued from the start. Along with that, the first thing that caught my eye was how you divided your blog post into sections that span a timeline: I think that is so genius and it looks great stylistically. Also, it provides a really good base for people (such as myself) who are not as familiar with the history and ins and outs of graffiti. Continuing with that too, I really appreciate how you started off with a well-known graffiti artist in your introduction and then went onto to murkier territory. I think that was a really great attention grabber, as you spoke about a pop cultural event (the shredding of Balloon Girl) that many people will recognize, even if they are not knowledgeable about street art. Along with that, the way you tied in the concepts of aura and mechanical reproduction with the modern state of graffiti was really good too. All in all, your post provided such a smooth transition from the origins of graffiti as a marginalized “low-class” art form to something that members of the upper class purchase for millions of dollars today. The inclusion of graffiti’s mass commercialization in the blog post was executed flawlessly, as well. You managed to include so much detail! Lastly, I also really appreciate how you included the opinion of Banksy himself. His thoughts on how “capitalism finds a place—even for its enemies” were intriguing to me and it reminded me of the class discussion we had involving Black Mirror and how capitalism even commercializes oppositional attitudes. Once, again, you did a great job! \(￣︶￣*\)
ReplyDelete