Apr
15
The Graffiti Debate: Glorifying art or vandalism?
By
Is this art or vandalism? Twenty five years later, the debate still rages. (Photo by Martha Cooper)
It’s hard for New Yorkers in 2009 to conceptualize what the subways were like 25 years ago. I was reminded of this fact earlier this week when my Criminal Law case tackled the ever-popular decision in People v. Goetz. That seminal case, as students of New York history know, involved the vigilantism of Bernard Goetz on a subway car in 1984.
Without touching upon the moral issues raised by the case, the class discussion showed a clear divide between people who had grown up in New York and people who hadn’t. Those who hadn’t were having a tougher time understanding what the subways were like in the 1980s.
These days, we have no qualms about riding the trains at 2 a.m. heading home from a night out. Twenty five years ago, though, the graffiti-covered trains, prone to electrical problems, track fires and all sorts of breakdowns, were just not that safe. But back then, the system wasn’t that safe, and everyone knew it.
During the same year as the Goetz shooting, Martha Cooper and Henry Chalfant released a book called Subway Art. The tome — a picture book — was one of the first to focus on the graffiti-covered subways as an art form. Today, the duo is reissuing the book in 25th Anniversary form with a whole slew of new photos. (The old one is available online here in its entirety.)
Over the weekend, as part of the recognition of this book’s release, The City Section ran a profile of Cooper, and it elicited some interesting feedback from New Yorkers who lived through the downs and ups of the city’s subway system.
“Wish that non-native NYers would stop idealizing the graffiti-covered trains,” wrote one lifelong New Yorker on Twitter.
And that’s the real debate, isn’t it? Should we be glorifying graffiti or should graffiti serve as a reminder of lawless and decrepit days underground when the subways were safe and New Yorkers used them not because they wanted to but because they had to?
In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell explores all of these issues. The combination of the public outcry over the Goetz shootings and the NYPD’s push in the mid-1980s to rid the system of graffiti helped turn the subway systems around. No longer were the subways viewed as Anarchy Underground where anything went because no one was around to police it.
We sit here comfortably in 2009, and we’re able to look back on graffiti-covered trains as art if we so choose. I have to wonder though if we should so choose. This book and The Times’ coverage of it glorifies what in its simplest form was a destructive crime that contributed to the problems — both actual and perceived — that plagued the subways. Is it art for art’s sake or art done at the sake of other people’s safety?
Today, the parallels to the times of the graffiti-covered trains are not inapt. The MTA is facing funding shortfalls that could lead to massive fares and a partially shuttered system. Station agents will be let go, and that fear of safety could creep in around the edges. Perhaps the best way, then, to appreciate the impact street art had would be to talk about its problems as well as its artistic value. If we glorify this vandalism- and crime-filled past, don’t we risk repeating it?
28 Responses to “The Graffiti Debate: Glorifying art or vandalism?”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
-
[...] graffiti on the subway be respected as a form of artistic expression or despised as evidence of an anarchic/broken society? [2nd Avenue [...]
-
[...] grafitti article i came across thought you guys might enjoy this The Graffiti Debate: Glorifying art or vandalism? :: Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog [...]
-
[...] As I explored in April, some feel graffiti is art while others believe graffiti exhibits simply glorify vandalism. No matter the outcome, New York City Transit and the NYPD are hard at work combating these [...]
-
[...] As I explored in April, some feel graffiti is art while others believe graffiti exhibits simply glorify vandalism. No matter the outcome, New York City Transit and the NYPD are hard at work combating these [...]
People have been glorifying the nastiness of the 70s for a while now, and not just out-of-towners. Every time someone laments the “Disneyfication” of Times Square or the gentrification of the East Village I want to slap them upside the head. Graffiti is a *crime* that was a symptom of the times: there wasn’t enough police to stop it, or they were too busy stopping worse crime. Why would anyone want to go back to that? Plus, few people like strangers drawing all over their property, why is it any different for public property??
Will you still be smiling if someone “arts” your new car? You have no right to be upset, its “art”. Lets tag some of the “artists” cars and see how quickly they become violent from the artwork.
all graffiti artist follow a strick set of unwritten rules that say 1graffiti is not done on a car of a civilain it is however exceptable to write on the car of another graffiti artist that one may have beef with. 2 graffti is not to be done on the ground 3 it is not to be done on private property of a civilan but is exceptable to be done on a writters house that they may have beef with. there are many more of these rules and all though it may sound stupid almost all writters are aware of them. and writting on a artist’s car is a very bad idea. there are alot more writters than there are people that would support you on that decision.
well most of these artist were kids from the ghettos or kids with rough childhoods. so to them instead of following there other ways of killings , drugs, fighting etc.. turn to street art. not causing any harm to no one! but when being caught by authority’s are being sentenced for major years in prison for expressing them selfs the only way they know how, mainly to get noticed. for people who don’t know about this art to you it is straight vandalism, but to the wsb crew it is a way of life joo. but now even the police are taking that from us.
Except they did cause harm because the graffiti-covered trains contributed to the overall sense of danger in the subways. You can’t justify graffiti and vandalism – very obviously crimes against the MTA – as a way of life just because that’s what the people who engage in these acts think. Society doesn’t work that way.
Ermmm… much (most?) of it was gangs marking their territory. Hardly innocents.
PS. Growing up in the ghetto is no excuse.
only 10% of graffiti is gang related.
and i would like to see how you would view this topic you knew what life under oppression is really like.
apologies if you do.
Yes we should show appreciation for graffiti. It is an important aspect of hip hop culture, which was born and developed in NYC and is arguably the city’s biggest contribution to popular culture. To suppress this art is to suppress a major historical movement that has become a cultural and commercial phenomenon.
Rather than suppress the art, the city should regulate it. If used correctly, it could beautify rather than blight the city. Doing so would also help eliminate its negative connotations and allow the public to embrace its beauty and realize its potential.
I think there’s a difference between appreciation and glorification though. I certainly appreciate the artistic and cultural implications behind graffiti, street art and the B-Boys. (This book by the way is great.)
These day though what passes for graffiti is a far cry from what Cooper and Chalfant documented, and even then, this semi-nostalgia for the early 1980s is a bit misguided.
I have nothing against graffiti as art, but part of its appeal was always its criminality. Legal graffiti just isn’t as interesting to a lot of people.
Haha, yeah, regulated art is sexy as hell and so expressive.
Yes, I agree that criminality is part of its appeal and that regulating it will limit its expressiveness. But the MTA already regulates different forms of art in the subways via Arts for Transit, so why not include and embrace graffiti?
Just like I wouldn’t expect the MTA to sponsor controversial music or posters, I wouldn’t expect it to sponsor controversial graffiti art. But regulated graffiti would be better than the plain trains we ride today.
In today’s urban pop culture, to be criminal is to be cool. Too often teens find an identity becoming “criminal artists” because classic identities (jock, nerd, prep) do not apply. With no talent they can call themselves “artist” because they tag.
These were not territorial gang markings. On the contrary, writers formed there own groups as an alternative to the gangs/drugs that surrounded them. By the mid 80s drugs had ravaged the graffiti subculture, but it is a true American artform (albeit an illegal artform) born in the inner city. It brought together kids from all walks of life who competed with their art on the trains.
Violent crime on the subway cannot be attributed to graf. I would prefer that the police concentrate on more serious crimes than bike riders, drinkers, smokers and graf writers. I guess it’s easier to nab these kinds of low-level criminals than the people who are actually committing violent acts, or embezzling money. Benjamin Kabak is quick to call graf a crime against the MTA. But the MTA also thinks it’s a crime to walk between cars. Come on! I’d say it’s a crime to maintain 2 sets of books, as the MTA did. And it’s criminal to run the service so poorly, even in flush times! If the trains ran on time and didn’t break down, and there was not violent crime, people would not have been as scared. More trains, better service. But let’s say NO to a police state. And please, better methodologies for determining the causes of violent crime. You sound like a Giuliani “broken windows” theorist.
Come on! I’d say it’s a crime to maintain 2 sets of books, as the MTA did.
Except they didn’t. In fact, when the issue when to trial, they were found not guilty – NOT GUILTY – of keeping two sets of books. I’m hardly one to give the MTA pass on economic matters, but this is a tired, old story that people keep getting wrong.
Anyway, broken down trains that don’t run on time do not contribute to crime. A lack of safety measures and a lack of investment into station security measures – such as lights and token booth employees and graffiti-free subway cars – do though.
It’s useful to distinguish between what contributes to a “sense of danger” and what, in fact, contributes to danger.
Yes, it’s true: NYC’s aggressive push to clean up the graffiti in the subways correlated with a dramatic improvement in public safety. But crime likely dropped due to increases in subway security personnel, improved police response, and improvements that made the subways less prone to breakdowns and blackouts. All of these factors, coupled with heavier fines for vandalism, also reduce graffiti. So this is a correlation problem: it’s not that we attack graffiti and crime goes down; we attack crime, and graffiti goes down with it. To say graffiti is “dangerous” is something of a stretch.
From a public policy perspective, characterizing non-violent, non-threatening behavior of generally low- or middle-class city youth as “dangerous” has serious consequences. The NY Times archive and Chang’s “Can’t Stop Won’t Stop” (mentioned by Ben above) offer examples of kids who died in accidents or confrontations with police after being caught writing graffiti. There is no reason for such deaths, but, if we convince ourselves that graffiti itself is “dangerous,” we might start to see these deaths as justified.
Painting or etching on property that is not yours without seeking prior approval is vandalism regardless if the vandalism is considered a form of art. Those caught conducting these unlawful acts should prosecuted to the full extent of the law and be required to conduct community service. If people want to see beautiful art, that is what art contests and art galleries are for.
It’s all definitely art, but it could also be vandalism, depending on whose surface it’s applied to…. the question is, are we endorsing vandalism if we embrace the style that emerged from nYc graffiti art? Should it be taught in art classes? Answer:
http://aokpub.com/graff-prez.pdf
Grafiti is an art, not something made to destory property. And its very interesting
there’s a 25% discount on the 25th Anniversary Ed. of Subway Art mentioned above if you use the promo code at the publisher’s website http://www.chroniclebooks.com/.....s_id,7883/
Graffiti is Art…….its not supposed to be what people think it is.People are destroying the meaning of graphic art by making it become a crime and against the law to do. Event though graffiti is more or the less a crime, i think it depends on where you write it, what you write and how you write it.Art is supposed to a way to express life and what happens in lives, but because Graffiti is one of the ways people do this, its becoming harder and harder to explain why people like me do graffiti because as a crime, nobody wants to hear about it
art is how you express yourself adn we express ourselves by doin graffiti…so graffiti is art…deal with it