This graffiti seems to lack any form of organisation or thought input - appearing to be more spontaneous in its execution. On first glance, it may not symbolise anything specific, i.e. a name or a “tag”. It appears to have been created simply to be deviant. The fact that it is on the ‘public’ side of the fence, rather than the private side, perhaps represents more encouragement to graffiti as it ‘technically’ belongs to no one. It can also be seen by others on this ‘public’ side as perhaps a marking of territory or a form of status between other delinquents.
This idea of ‘public’ and ‘private’ could also be applied to
these buildings. The block of flats (left) doesn’t necessarily belong to an
individual, so no thoughts of potential ‘private’ property may occur. The house
(below right) does belong to a single individual. It is a ‘private’ property,
but has still experienced graffiti. Therefore, the idea of ‘public’ and ‘private’
may not be relevant.
The nature of the graffiti also differs. These seem more thorough and premeditated. The individual has taken more time planning the graffiti, as well as executing it. This graffiti, which is displaying a name, is more likely to be used as a territorial symbol.
Forms of community art and murals are also subject to graffiti. These effectively fill the space on walls not only to promote community togetherness expressed through art, but to perhaps deter individuals from taking part in any graffiti exercises. There are, however, still visible images of graffiti upon these murals – perhaps showing an ineffectiveness of these murals, but also a willingness for individuals to deface other wall visuals to demonstrate their own graffiti handiwork.
These images also document the use
of graffiti in displaying territory. The very public nature of this graffiti
upon a wall (right) and in a bus shelter (left), both in very bold lettering, aims to
establish territorial boundaries between local gangs.
No comments:
Post a Comment