The term “graffiti” makes many people uneasy. For some, visions are conjured of gangs, crime, and urban decay. Others see their garage doors, their sidewalks, and their homes marred with ugly paint. As said in a Los Angeles Times article,
“Long a serious problem in Los Angeles' poorer neighborhoods, graffiti have become a citywide eyesore, marring the urban complexion like a runaway bout of acne. The toll on the population is high—in the millions of dollars spent to eradicate it, in decreased property values, in the crime experts say it spawns and in the more intangible psychic costs of living in a city that looks as though it is under siege” (Stolberg).
This paper proposes that the public at large, the art world, and governments worldwide have a limited understanding of what graffiti is, and how to deal with graffiti around them. The essay will also briefly address the question of whether graffiti can be controlled, and the ownership of “public” space.
Most people want to live in a clean, crime-free community, and graffiti is usually attributed as an illness, an accessory to crime, delinquency and disarray. This idea was the basis of an article published in a 1982 issue of The Atlantic by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling. Aptly titled “Broken Windows”, the article suggested that visible decay in human dwellings and structures will lead to an escalation toward more decay, litter, and - most importantly – crime.
The New York Police Department’s website has stated their interpretation of this fact fairly explicitly: “Graffiti-adorned trains and tunnels, buildings, blocks and cars, communicated a message of chaos to New Yorkers and tourists alike. Whether or not the statistics supported these assumptions was irrelevant, because the mere impression of disorder was enough (NYPD).” This suggests that the present forces governing graffiti litigation are only interested in obtaining research if it supports their present position – one focused on the eradication of the “message of chaos” transmitted via graffiti and street art.
However, at the heart of the debate is a simple idea – the ownership of space. Graffiti is an attempt to make one’s surroundings familiar; to add value to the world around oneself, thus creating a deeper sense of community order. Whether this is done through a simple signature, sticker, poster, or more complex work, graffiti provides a way to be a lasting part of the environment. A perfect example of this can be found in the work of a graffiti writer known as “Revs”.
Revs, an ironworker now in his late thirties, is most well known for his autobiography - one you won’t find in your local library. Armed with a bucket of house paint, a roller, and a can of black spraypaint, Revs wrote his story one paragraph at a time in the darkness of New York City’s subway tunnels. The “pages”, whitewashed squares, were numbered, dated, and signed. In the first entry, Revs told the story of his birth (even the hospital he was delivered in), and in subsequent entries he talked of varying events and ideas that he held dear. Before his arrest by the New York Police Department’s Vandals Task Force, Revs had painted over two hundred entries in the tunnels.
Lieutenant Steve Mona, part of the NYPD Vandals Task Force, the group who track graffiti and graffiti writers, even saw merit in his work, calling them “little poems”. James Boglioli, another key member of the task force and the officer who finally arrested Revs, described how involved he became in the writer’s story, so much he felt perhaps he understood Revs – if only a little. Members of the task force track and document known graffiti writers carefully with thick files containing photographs of their graffiti, information about their homes and where they work, as well as many actual names and faces behind the paint.
With all this information, couldn’t the police track down and arrest just about any graffiti writer? Therein lies the dilemma – a law enforcement organization might have a dossier as thick as a dictionary on someone like Revs, but unless they catch them in the act, they won’t be able to get them convicted. Moreover, they can only convict them for that particular act – even if their name is lovingly scribed across a hundred walls elsewhere (Gallagher).
New York City’s laws define graffiti as “any inscription, figure or mark of any type on any public or private building or other structure or any other real or personal property owned, operated or maintained by a public benefit corporation, the city of New York or any agency or instrumentality thereof or by any person, firm, or corporation, or any personal property maintained on a city street or other city-owned property pursuant to a franchise, concession or revocable consent granted by the city, unless the express permission of the owner or operator of the property has been obtained.” Following New York’s example, similar definitions now exist in cities worldwide. Put simply, writing or drawing anything on a surface that isn’t yours is explicitly denied, and the competition for surface space so integral to graffiti make this a very real obstacle to writers and property owners alike.
One of the most crippling misconceptions about graffiti is the public understanding of who actually participates. Common knowledge would suggest that graffiti writing would be more prevalent in the lower classes of American society, only populated by males – instead, graffiti writers come from all walks of life. Once asked what sort of kids wrote graffiti, officer Kevin Hickey of the NYPD replied, “The type of kids that live in New York City (Stowers 2).”
The final key point exists in that of the artistic community’s perspective on “graffiti and spray can art”. In an essay by George C. Stowers, the popular viewpoint that “why it is an art form far [outweighs] the criticism of illegality, incoherence, and nonstandard presentation.” However, this suggests that the artistic merit of a piece of graffiti outweighs the value a property owner places upon the cleanliness of their property. To put one above the other is a surefire way to create conflict. As the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that eye is hardly universal – it all depends on how you look at it. Steven Powers, known by his moniker ESPO, and somewhat revered in graffiti circles both for his artwork and writing, once said, “Graffiti gets you a baloney sandwich, and ‘work of art’ gets you wine and cheese.” Incidentally, Powers is now a recognized “artist” and sign painter, having worked with the Creative Time project to paint signs on rides at Coney Island among others (Robertson).
Even Revs is still writing, although his medium has changed somewhat. These days, you can find many of his steel sculptures in the streets, alleys, and leftover places of New York City, each carefully crafted and installed by hand. Most of them are even placed there with permission from the building owners. For Revs, this is his way of truly becoming a part of the environment. When interviewed in a short video, “Teenage Piece”, titled after one of his sculptures, Revs explained: “A car can back up into [the sculpture]. Somebody can get their head cracked open on it. A dog can go on it. Somebody can paint it if they want. It rusts. It's more interesting that way, you know?”
    Graffiti does not exclusively lie in either the realm of art, nor solely as crime. The reasons for participating in, fighting against, or supporting graffiti are so varied and so grounded in personal opinion that one should not accept one perspective without acknowledging that it is only a part of the larger picture – a picture that, perhaps, no person or group can ever fully appreciate. The desired effect of this, rather than despair, should be to question how graffiti is depicted and felt. Why are homeowners afraid? Why does law enforcement see graffiti as a threat to public order? Why do some graffiti writers only participate to cut into the world around them and leave a mark, while others seek to brighten and improve their environment – and still others seem to balance both?
    Regarding the control of graffiti – for any law enforcement group to attempt to totally prevent people from writing on walls is sheer lunacy, but on the same token, their efforts provide a sort of “safety” – a valve, so to speak, on the amount of graffiti in urban centers, giving property owners a greater sense of security. Since not all graffiti writers are trying to accomplish the same goals – some see painting over a local store window as acceptable, even preferable, while others would treat the same situation as distasteful – a consensus on the harm graffiti may or may not do seems an impossible goal.
    The aim should instead be to see the person behind the paint – to ask, “why are they putting this design here, and in this format?” When we examine individual acts, the “threat” felt by so many people begins to evaporate, leaving behind markings – a sign that, for better or worse, everyone affects the space around them.


















Bibliography.

"#309: Cat and Mouse."  This American Life. Brian Thomas Gallagher. National Public
Radio. February 2007.
"Anti-Graffiti City and State Legislation." New York City. 1 May 2008
<http://www.nyc.gov/html/nograffiti/html/legislation.html>.
"Crime Prevention | Citywide Vandals Task Force." NYPD. New York Police
Department. 23 April 2008. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/crime_prevention/citywide_vandals_taskforce.shtml>.
Kelling, George, and Wilson, James. "Broken Windows." Atlantic Monthly Mar 1982 16
Apr 2008 <www.theatlantic.com/doc/198203/broken-windows>.
Robertson, Joseph. “Start Here: An Interview with Steve Powers.” LAB Issue 01. Second
Edition. 2007.
Stolberg, Sheryl. "Engulfed in a sea of spray paint; Los Angeles' anti-graffiti programs
have made some breakthroughs, but many residents see the battle as a hopeless one. The visual blight is taking a toll on the city's psyche." Los Angeles Times v.111 8 Jan 1992: A1.
Stowers, George C. "Graffiti Art: An Essay Concerning The Recognition of Some Forms
of Graffiti As Art." Open Eyed Dreams. 2007. Rebel Graffiti. 1 May 2008 <http://www.openeyeddreams.com/rebelGraffity/html/comments1.htm>.
"Teenage Piece." YouTube. Recorded interview and art installation. 2 May 2008
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw4YkmHlIQg>.