privatepublic
The graffiti is not that interesting in itself, it is the act. Private property and public property share a
common space that is fragmented and unified by position and proximity. They have a form that is abstract and coded. We can normally tell a bus stop is public property or that a road is shared space for pedestrian and cars. These spaces are changing and interact. A building is a common element and it has a coating system to protect it and eastheticise it. The issue in most developed countries is graffiti being applied to public and private property.
The marks are cleaned and a dialogue can appear that is aesthetic, this dialogue is the interaction of solvents and painting over of illegal mark making. The authorities police public property to protect its integrity and aesthetic appeal even using surveillance to record space and the interactions. I always love to see the remnants of tags on a surface, the work of the sun, solvents and markers as they coalesce
in a constant repitition making variations on the theme. The theme is governed by simple addition and
subtraction but what is the theme? Is it simply about authority and the rebel artist? This is not my concern, it simply is.
It is an interaction or dialogue and despite any argument for or against there is a constant visual
assault that leaves scars or remnants. These scars are ignored as they have no function other than to speak of a dialogue that has already happened. It isn't a memory but a scar like the scar of the tribe inflicted though on a surface to normalise or reappropriate an idea of order though in itself unable to have the authority necessary to make anything actually happen. Both parties, the owner and defacer have little control rather they have only the ability to add and take away or appropriate space through this mechanism. Possibly the space is open to many dialogues but held in check by law that governs appropriate aesthetics within a controlled environment.
It is the scar that is most telling of graffiti because it is a collaboration. Is either party an artist? probably
not and yet they feel compelled to debate with markers spray and solvents. Even a crudely painted over tag has a presence that the mark maker also appreciates and possibly the vigilante type enjoys too. A collaboration that happens through a certain chemistry and dialogue.
common space that is fragmented and unified by position and proximity. They have a form that is abstract and coded. We can normally tell a bus stop is public property or that a road is shared space for pedestrian and cars. These spaces are changing and interact. A building is a common element and it has a coating system to protect it and eastheticise it. The issue in most developed countries is graffiti being applied to public and private property.
The marks are cleaned and a dialogue can appear that is aesthetic, this dialogue is the interaction of solvents and painting over of illegal mark making. The authorities police public property to protect its integrity and aesthetic appeal even using surveillance to record space and the interactions. I always love to see the remnants of tags on a surface, the work of the sun, solvents and markers as they coalesce
in a constant repitition making variations on the theme. The theme is governed by simple addition and
subtraction but what is the theme? Is it simply about authority and the rebel artist? This is not my concern, it simply is.
It is an interaction or dialogue and despite any argument for or against there is a constant visual
assault that leaves scars or remnants. These scars are ignored as they have no function other than to speak of a dialogue that has already happened. It isn't a memory but a scar like the scar of the tribe inflicted though on a surface to normalise or reappropriate an idea of order though in itself unable to have the authority necessary to make anything actually happen. Both parties, the owner and defacer have little control rather they have only the ability to add and take away or appropriate space through this mechanism. Possibly the space is open to many dialogues but held in check by law that governs appropriate aesthetics within a controlled environment.
It is the scar that is most telling of graffiti because it is a collaboration. Is either party an artist? probably
not and yet they feel compelled to debate with markers spray and solvents. Even a crudely painted over tag has a presence that the mark maker also appreciates and possibly the vigilante type enjoys too. A collaboration that happens through a certain chemistry and dialogue.
Comments