Understanding Graffiti: Learn To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb
An essay by Benjamin Alldridge

Choke train buffers like a head-locked Ed Koch
Nurture the craft of concrete visionaries
Cave painters screaming "Loosen the cuffs!"
Cave paintings get the natural history feather dust
Pick a lust.

Aesop Rock really says it best with those lyrics right there, and sums up the general mentality of society towards the Graffiti community as a whole. Throughout this article we'll investigate why that is, and even more importantly to the population at large, ways to try and make its existence as pleasant as possible. After all, art will always have some place in society, no matter what form it takes.

Before we go any further, let's actually set down some basis for what we mean when we use the term "Graffiti". For the majority of people who use the term, it will take the form of the general definition, as follows: ".. the illegal or unauthorized defacing of a building, wall or other edifice or object by painting or otherwise marking it with words, pictures or symbols." (source: NCPC)

Already, with just this definition we see quite a bias against the Graffiti movement. However, it does not allow for the entire spectrum of what Graffiti can (and indeed, does) encompass, and rather, pigeonholes it to an obscene and completely crude function that serves little-to-no purpose in society rather than being a nuisance. On a more empirical level (that is, one which has been based on fact), Graffiti branches out to a more harbouring definition: "Graffiti is a type of deliberately inscribed marking made by humans on surfaces, both private and public. It can take the form of art, drawings, or words." (source: Wikipedia).  Another one would be as follows: "The application of media to a surface." (source: Style Wars), For the purposes of this article, these are the definitions we will use (unless otherwise noted).

All too often people make the statement the statement that Graffiti is a scourge of society; that is, that it is ugly and basically a degenerate movement which really should have eradicated itself long ago. In absolute honesty, to someone who has spent the majority of their life involved with the movement in some manner, this is completely heartbreaking. As a writer^[1], it is really quite an insult to be considered a pathetic and useless waste of space simply because of something from our youths to occupy time. Don't laugh; all too often do people who partake in the movement get branded as such. In reality, this couldn't be much further from the truth; a good majority of people who have or do partake are gainfully employed (as designers, artists, et cetera) and do contribute to the community in a very functional way. Why, then, do they get stuck with these labels? Because society, as a whole, is uneducated about the movement and how it exists. Ultimately this is unavoidable; however, there are a number of avenues to be taken to ease the blow.

Now, before we go any further, let's break Graffiti writers up into three categories.

1. The ones who the general public are exposed to most often. These are the ones who drop tags and nothing but, and do nothing but destroy public (and private) property. These we will call "Type 1" Graffiti writers.


2. The ones who do serve some functional purpose within the movement and society. They do both disciplines. That is, they still do tags, albeit much less destructively (and much more aesthetically) than the Type 1 writers, but they also do pieces^[2], and quite often, legally paint too. These are Type 2 writers.


3. The third and final group is an almost impossible find, although it does exist. These are writers who have retired from the game^[3], but still stay true to their roots. Be it by doing legal walls, or canvases, or any other process which performs the same function in a legal manner. These are Type 3 writers.

The majority of writers fit snugly into the first two types, housing an abundance of age groups, social classes, genders, life experiences, and religions. Another important factor is how involved any one person is involved within the movement, and their individual experience and skill levels. This is different for every single person who ever does anything which could be considered "Graffiti". The general social ideology of it however, typifies every person who partakes as unemployed, degenerate, Godless criminals in their mid-to-late teenage years. Realistically, this generalisation does hold a little bit of water, but it is nowhere near as expansive as the full spectrum. Quite like the first definition in this article, actually. But this still does not explain why we see this massive tendency towards wanting to destroy it, rather than embrace it, nor does it explain why this will never actually work.

The reasons there is such a disdain towards it is because, oftentimes, it is quite ugly. Oftentimes it is careless and destroys sacred things. And, oftentimes it is fatal. These cases are far from the majority however, and comprise only a minute element of the much bigger picture. These are the instances the media and other outlets jump all over and sink their fangs into, and because of this, the entire movement gets a bad name. In other words: it's really only a few bad eggs that ruin it for everyone involved, and get the entire community marred for life for things that they've not actually done. Do you see where this is going? No? Let us continue and see if we can make it clearer. Instances of Graffiti take many forms: that which is done illegally and is comprised completely of "tags"^[4]; that which is pure vandalism, for instance the destruction of a monument or sacred place; that which is done illegally, yet still serves an aesthetic purpose (such as pieces); that which is done legally and serves an aesthetic purpose (such as murals); and that which is done privately. Seldom do the last 3 get any exposure whatsoever through any media outlet, and even when it does it does not make it to the media at large. Why? Why is the movement being pushed backwards by these corporations who hold conglomerate and effectively ultimate power over the news and coverage we're delivered? Because supporting it would make them look bad, and at the end of the day, this is not an acceptable risk for them to take. Anyone who knows anything about business and effectiveness of reputation would realise this will always be the case, regardless of what the subject matter is. That is more than fair enough. Or is it?

Not really, no. There are a multitude of ways which can be utilised to be impartial to both sides of the fence. However, this requires not only action from the people reporting the instances, but also the local authorities and the people actually involved. Nothing can truly ever advance with only one party attempting to move forward; all parties involved need to give a little slack in order for it to ever get very far. It's similar in concept to the equal-based political constructs and ideologies of the early 20th-century, while they are unattainable on a large scale, on a local scale they can form some of the strongest social lattices possible. However, when you turn blind and do not give any ground, one side will eventually become sick of the situation not being load-balanced, and rebel. This is exactly what has happened in the Graffiti movement of recent years. It has reached what would be called by many an epidemic level, and shows no signs of ever relenting. In effect, local governments and the media have shot themselves in the foot, and have harboured the growth of the movement into the monster that it is. Another way to think of it is as a fire. When properly looked after and maintained, it is perfectly safe, and even nurturing. However, if you turn your back on it and do not tend to it properly, it will grow out of control and become extremely dangerous. Graffiti as a whole is that very same fire.

In a lot of ways, Graffiti is the ugly little brother to war. It's everywhere, it's a constant factor in our lives, and, there is always an enemy to be faced. Instead of guns the tool of choice is a can of Belton and a Fatty^[5], and instead of nation verses nation, it's the world verses the underground. The name game is exactly the same; however, the overall message is generally absolute opposites. War preaches and practices hate and destruction; Graffiti preaches and practices brotherhood and beautification. While yes, beautification is a very interpretation-based word, the overall intention remains the same. Art is beauty: this is true because beauty is emotion, and art is emotion, so effectively they are the same thing. The problem with this is the ideal that anything not able to be displayed in a gallery is not, in fact, art. How can this be true, logically? It cannot. Art allows for everything based on emotion and creativity, which is not limited to what can be placed inside of a gallery space. In fact, the realms of what can exist inside of the walls of a gallery are quite limited indeed, and does not account for much of the art produced at all. For instance, poetry doesn't serve a place in a gallery. Music does not serve a place in a gallery. Web design does not serve a place in a gallery. Seeing a trend here? You guessed it, creativity and the perception of artistic value are very different things. What this means is, whether you are willing to accept it or not, Graffiti in all of its forms is an art, no matter how destructive it may be.

Now the architects are rioting cause we built something different
I'm like how the fuck sure shot evolution not my business?

Let's delve into the destructive nature of art somewhat. Let's use the example of musicians, in particular, Keith Moon. The drummer for The Who, and a musician held in high regard even today. Society at large embraced his destructive nature, and his ability to tear through a hotel room in a matter of minutes, trumping it as one of the biggest draw-cards to his artistic appeal. He was an incredible drummer, but also infamous for ruining any room he stayed in. TVs into swimming pools, holes in walls, even to the extent of faecal matter being strewn across rooms. Because of the things he was able to do artistically, he was given the green light for such antisocial and destructive behaviour. Something that played an integral role in his overall sound and style was allowed to continue, inspite of the overall effects it ultimately caused. Now, let's be creative and supplant Keith Moon's circumstances to your average walk-a-day Graffiti writer. Same principle to the matter, same effective situation in total. In the name of art, this destruction is an essential part for it to exist. However, if you are found partaking in these shenanigans, you're not considered a hero because of your talents; you're considered a thug because of the steps mandated to exercise that talent. Fairness? You decide that.

It is this uneven bias which has helped propel the movement to what it is currently, almost like a machine which has gone haywire and has no access to the master controls. It will run rampant until it eventually runs out of power, and not a second before that. The best course of action is to guide it down the least destructive path, and just hope to God that no-one gets hurt in the process. In application, this means provide ways to nurture it and let it thrive in a constructive manner, and not in a destructive one which it currently is. That aspect of destruction will always exist, but, it can be eased a lot with just some simple steps to embrace the culture. Be it providing spaces to do it, be it giving people the chance to do this in a legal way in areas in a controlled manner, be it relaxing laws in certain locations which are not directly having any effect on people at large.

All of these methods have been proven successful to different degrees, and not just for short-term periods either. Local councils have in the past implemented similar programs effectively over periods of years and shown large reductions in the level of nuisance Graffiti (Type 1), by providing legal spaces for artists to paint and providing legal productions and tutorials at local festivals. One such occurrence is the Rapid Festival which takes place in Pine Rivers, and provides not only excellent live music, but a chance to paint on boards with provided paint and caps, and even the chance to paint with people who've been involved in the movement for decades, such as Jason Dax Woodward (aka. KASINO ACR). An interesting aspect of this involvement is that anyone who attends the festival can get a live tutorial from these guys, and hopefully gain a better understanding of the inner-workings of the movement. Ultimately, this has proven a rather effective tactic, especially with the youth patrons of the festivals. If it can prove effective locally, why can't it be tested on a wider scale? In this case, prevention isn't the best cure.

One thing about Graffiti is the fact that is an unwritten movement. Every piece of knowledge contained within is passed through word-of-mouth and interaction, and contains things which cannot be learnt from books. Underneath the hard overcoat of destruction and violence, there is a centric theme of camaraderie and resistance against a common "enemy". A victory in the movement is making it another day without being nabbed^[6] for getting up^[7].

To help us understand the steps which can be taken to help ease, let us granulate the types of Graffiti artists even further. There are two subsets to each of Type 2 and Type 3, which are as follows:

• Those who are in the movement to get noticed. This means they enjoy getting up as much as possible, as often as possible, anywhere possible. These are the majority of writers, which is a major reason for the force the movement currently has and will continue to have.


• Those who are in the movement for the love of it. These guys are the ones who love the art-form and the ability to render something. Not often you will find one of these guys, but they're the ones who'll go to the even bigger lengths to produce something.

Seeing that the majority are people who are about advancing themselves within the movement, it's quite hard to effectively quell that aspect down. Realistically: it's impossible. Even the extent of banning aerosol products, it will not work. Graffiti has been around since long before modern man, long before aerosol was even thought of. One thing to take into account is there are an infinite number of things which can be used in an infinite number of ways to render on an infinite number of surfaces, and thusly, there will always be something there to take the place of spraycans.

They only came to buff the name stuck to the train
That's a textbook page
for my seed up in flames

• Limiting the sale of spraycans to minors has proved ineffective: the majority of writers are old enough to buy supplies for themselves, and in the circumstances they are not, access to someone who can get it for them is not at all hard.
  


• Increasing security will be ineffective as it just means more of a game to writers, showing supremacy over authorities when they are evaded (something which is quite easily done).
  


• Throwing anyone caught away will be ineffective because there will always be an infinite number of people willing to take their places.


• Implementing so-called task-forces to remove and clean surfaces struck by graffiti will be ineffective because a fresh palette will always be more appealing than a dirty one. Besides, the resultant patches of off-coloured paint are really quite ugly to look at.


• Fencing and razor-wire is ineffective because there is always another way to access the areas a writer wants to paint.


• Surveillance is proved to be ineffective, because as a general rule writers have a total disdain for any form of cameras and will continue inspite of their presence.


• Prohibiting access to certain areas is ineffective because as a writer, conquest = fame.


• Anti-Graffiti campaigns are ineffective because they are generally not only extremely biased, but mostly ill-informed and produced by people who have no knowledge on the subject aside from what has been conveyed to them by the media outlets mentioned earlier. Not only this, they are open to wide parody by the Graffiti community, and indeed, the general public. This means the credibility of these campaigns becomes bunk, and ultimately, it is a waste of the taxpayer dollar.


• Running anyone found with paint or implements in will be ineffective because there are a large number who do actually use these products for lawful purposes (ones which should be co-ordinated by the government and local authorities).

As you can see, literally every course of action that has been taken for decades is inherently flawed, and thus costing YOU, the citizen, bulks of money on taxes for things which are in vain. If someone turned around and listened to those responsible for a minute or two, they'd realise that there are more than enough methods available to be explored in order to ease the problem. As already stated, it won't ever disappear completely, nor will one aspect of it ever be removed. Graffiti co-exists as a whole, featuring everything from tagging to bombing^[8] to piecing, every single aspect thrives off of one another. You take one aspect away, and the others lose their harmonious balance and become rampant, and thus manifest into something even wilder than already. In the minds of the governments this has got to be the very last thing that they'd want based on what they've already been demonstrating for the last ~30 years since Graffiti's inception in the New York subways.

One could argue that the Graffiti that the world is so desperately trying to destroy and cover is actually more beautiful and inspiring than the drab greys that the world is all too filled with. The colours found in Graffiti are generally extremely wild and vivid, creating complex fill patterns and visual cues to build up textures and shapes. Next time you see a piece, take some time out to investigate deeper than just "Oh, it's Graffiti. Whatever.", and actually look at the lines, the colours, and the visual elements. The majority of it has a place in a gallery, however, because social convention says so it never gets represented. Go figure.

Some simple steps to a happier, more integrated future:

• Space. Space is a necessity in this. There's a finite amount of Graffiti that can exist at any one time, and therefore a finite amount of space it will consume. If you provide spaces to occupy some of that, there is therefore less on the streets and directly in the public eye.


• Education. If you don’t know what you're facing, you won't ever come to terms with it effectively nor really, ever at all. If you educate yourselves and the public in general, the chance that things can be managed will be greatly increased.


• Events. Plan events to embrace the artistic side of the movement, such as festivals and jams^[9] where people can paint together and possibly even compete for prizes. Ironlak (a brand of Art-targeted aerosol) recently ran an effective one of these offering their product as a prize. If you provide them a chance to gain exposure, companies such as Ironlak are more inclined to get on board and ultimately boost the effect.


• Murals. The biggest thing that society underestimates is the decency of the Graffiti movement in and of itself. This means, that the likelihood of a writer going over another writer's work that is done well is extremely low, particularly when this is done in a professional manner. The only people who break this unspoken code tend to be Type 1 writers, and the occurrence tends to be few and far between. This is thanks to the respect system found within the movement, someone’s fame^[10] plays heavily into this.


• Embrace. Graffiti is heavily featured and emulated (quite poorly, most of the time...) in graphic design and clothing of late, however, the real thing is considered ugly and disgusting. This imbalance makes it more likely to actually be ugly and disgusting, but if you openly embrace the movement it will become much more appealing.

Just these steps here are ones which would give at least some results, to what extent is unknown. However, it is a definitive fact that it would be much more effective than the current system which we are involved with. Basically, it comes down to how you wish to manage things, and spend your money. Spend it nurturing something into something bigger and better, or spend it trying to destroy it in a battle you could never win from the start.

Hopefully this article has helped you gained an understanding of the movement from the inside, and not just the external view that is all too often thrown about. If it helps effect some change, awesome. If not, tomorrow is another day.

Definitions

Writer

One who practices Graffiti.

Piece

"Pieces" or Masterpieces as they were originally called, are the height of Graffiti art, taking a large amount of time to paint and featuring much more impressive characteristics than their tagged counterparts.

The Game

What going painting is often referred to as.

Tags

The "scrawls" which comprise the base element of Graffiti. Words formed uniquely by the writer into their own "style", or "handstyle".

Fatty

A fatcap, which is a nozzle for spraycans which serves the purpose of filling large areas of surface rapidly and heavily. Most often used on trains to create large letters in situations which involve an element of speed.

Nabbed

Being apprehended for partaking in a crime. In this case, that would be Vandalism.

Getting Up

Simply, getting your work seen.

Bombing

Putting your name up rapidly and abundantly, similar in concept to the Blitzkrieg bombing raids of World War II

Jams

A festival or collective targeted specifically at writers, where they can come together and collaborate in a semi-competitive, friendly enviroment.

Fame

A writer's reputation as being a writer. Someone who has a lot of fame is someone who is well-respected within the writing community.