The structure of street art

Posted: May 16th, 2009 | Author: RJ | Category: Featured Posts, Random | Tags: 10 foot, brad downey, gaia, graffiti | 10 Comments »

About a month ago, I was in Baltimore and had a fascinating conversation with Gaia. We were debating which form or forms of government can best be used as an analogy to structure of the street art and graffiti worlds. The primary systems of government that we mentioned were democracy, autocracy/dictatorship, and anarchy.

Gaia’s post on the conversation went online a while ago and can be read on his blog. As Gaia notes, he believes that both street art and graffiti are inherently democratic. Artists and writers can put up their message and everybody has just as much right as anybody else to do so. I would add that this democracy also creates a general respect and understanding between those working on the street. For example, Barry McGee’s work is not going to be painted over because, as a group, artists and writers have given him a lot of respect. Similarly, it is generally understood within graffiti that there is a hierarchy of work, and that work of a higher complexity (pieces) can go over simpler work (tags, throw-ups…), and that hierarchy is upheld by consensus among writers. Gaia’s view seems to be the prevailing opinion among street artists, and many specifically talk about how the democracy of the street is what draws them to working in such a unique environment.

I held this view for a while as well. Then Brad Downey told me that he believes street art is the opposite of democracy. Essentially, his argument is that street art allows him or anybody else to do whatever they want, which isn’t democracy at all. And I’ve started to think he has a point. Maybe street art is more like anarchy.

In a democracy, everybody can voice their opinions, but their actions must ultimately be judged as acceptable or not by the masses. That means an artist could be reprimanded for his or her actions if they are against the general will of the other artists. While there are some unwritten rules of street art and artists might be frowned upon for breaking them, that’s about all the punishment they will get. As long as an artist is not afraid of people hating him, he could potentially claim that ripping up every Swoon wheatpaste in New York is his form of street art, and nobody could stop him no matter how upset they might be. On the street, artists can do pretty much anything they want.

Somebody’s going to point out that Gaia uses a different definition of democracy than I do. Well, we can still look at his definition (“a realm in which agonistic polemics and discourses can occur without suppression”) and see why it doesn’t fit with street art. Take a look at that last bit where it notes “without suppression.” Work gets painted over all the time, and that certainly seems to me like a form of suppression. While all fans of graffiti and street art must accept the ephemeral nature of the work, that generally implies that the work decays over time. On the contrary, work can be buffed or removed seconds after it is put up, and even within the community, many artists have no qualms about painting over other people’s work (and some even develop personal vendettas which play out as writing over/supressing brand new work – see 10 Foot). If that’s not suppression (particularly when it is done by fellow artists/writers), I don’t know what is.

Another potential system of government comparable to the street art and graffiti world might be a dictatorship. Particularly in the graffiti world, artists can get extremely hierarchical (can you believe I spelled that right on the first try?), and the kings have a good deal of power. Admittedly, I am not anywhere near as knowledgeable about graffiti as I am about street art, but as I understand it, not only is there the hierarchy I mentioned earlier with different types of pieces taking precedence over others, but the work of certain writers is left alone by all but the most bold up and coming writers. And unlike street art, when writers do break the rules, they get into actual fights about it (and no, street art’s flickr comment wars do not count).

This even crosses into street art a bit. The way that the street art community currently works, its existence is entirely dependent on passive acceptance by the graffiti community. All too often, street artists get their work intentionally written over with tags and graffiti, and the artists act as though they are honored that some writer is familiar enough with their work to write over it. If graffiti writers wanted to really put in the effort, they could virtually destroy a city’s street art scene.

10 Foot has shown this very well. Even though most artists are still trying to get up, it’s extremely rare to see certain artists whose work has not been tagged over by 10 Foot.

That’s not a dialog, it’s suppression.

The reality is though, no one of these systems can fully encapsulate what street art and graffiti are. I think it is more accurate to say that the correct analogy is whichever one the last person to get up was thinking of when they did their work. Some artists do work with the intent of creating a democratic dialog and respecting the work of others. Other artists just get up for themselves or to spread their message, disregarding the will of others. And many just paint to maintain a balance of power.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/delete08 spoons

I realise you’re trying to provoke comment, but I’m a sucker for that.

Street art is a number of cultural movements vying for space and exposure. It has no ideology and the analogy of democracy or any other form of government doesn’t fit at all (as an aside you have entirely misunderstood Anarchism, which is probably the purest form of democracy of all). As a mechanism for understanding the structure of street art it’s a non-starter. Brad Downey has it wrong – being able to SAY whatever you want is a core principle of democracy, not being able to DO what you want. Being able to get your message out for free (even if it’s just your tag over and over) is essential in a democracy, it’s one of the reasons the authorities hate it. In authoritarian countries the act of writing on the wall is democracy in action.

A better analogy – if you need one – is evolution, altough the “survival of the fittest” implications are less interesting than the ebbs and flows of styles and movements. Loosely connected crews (or collectives) agree rules or pass on traditions amongst themselves, tough it out for the limited spaces available, sometimes battle it out with the cops or the buffers for supremacy. Styles come into vogue, get successful, fade out or mutate, get overwritten. Nothing stays the same, everything changes over time. That’s what is so fucking great about it – we are all forced to keep writing, painting, pasting to stay up. It’s driving a completely autonomous powerhouse of creativity. I love it.

Here’s another analogy – the traditional art world (not forgetting the advertising industry) has the same effect as currents in the sea, hauling street artists off course into the rocks, sucking individuals and whole artistic styles into their own spheres of influence where money buys off creativity. The situationists had a word for this: recuperation (embracing a threat, making it safe and then selling it back to us). Sometimes an artist like Banksy will stumble along and capture the entire zeitgeist and the art industry will cream itself. What many graffiti artists don’t realise is that it’s not that Banksy sold OUT as much as the art industry bought IN (to the street art culture).

What you can never escape from is that street art and graffiti are essentially illegal (i.e. continuously under threat) and that the drivers and motivations this gives to those of us who want to get our stuff out there are always present, demanding that we keep reproducing our work and keep evolving or we die.
http://www.vandalog.com RJ

Thanks Spoons. Enjoying your input, as always.

I’ll admit that I don’t have a firm grasp of anarchism (one of my good friends is an anarchist, but I tend to tune out his politic rants), but I think it’s fair to say I used a more popular understanding of anarchism and that’s not the worst thing in the world for the purposes of this discussion.

I definitely like your evolution analogy. I think that’s probably the most apt one proposed so far.

Oh how I wish we lived in a world without recuperation. On the one hand, I look at the cover of the new Green Day album and think “well, I may not like the music this time around, but at least they’ve tried to capture the zeitgeist (the purpose of the album) even in the artwork by sixten.” and on the other hand, it’s clear that street art is being co-opted and gentrified for the mainstream.
Pingback: In Response to Vandalog’s Nature/Structure of Street Art « Considerations by Gaia
http://flickr.com/gaiastreetart Gaia

Hey RJ, here is the response that I posted ( which is more of a deviation towards another interest and maybe a clarification):

I am writing in response to Vandalog’s proposition that Street Art is Autocratic rather than Democratic in nature, and haunted by the suppressive force of strong and excessively vocal/active individuals and, of course, the Law.

http://blog.vandalog.com/2009/05/struture-street-art/#comments

I believe that in this conversation, we are drifting towards comparative models of political Governance, which is something that I would attempt to shy away from. Instead, I would consider whether Street Art is Horizontal or Vertical in nature and application.

Let me clarify my terms of Democracy: in reference to the democratic I do not intend to outline a system that is dictated and decided by a majority, while this inevitably exists within the street art realm, instead I intend to explore accessibility and proactivity. Accessibility in the sense of who can partake in the dialogue on the street, what are the structures that prevent people from working illegally and deny people entry. Proactivity in the sense that the conversation is maintained and fueled by the level of interaction with the street. One commentor on the post over at Vandalog posed “survival of the fittest” which is absolutely pertinent but has heavy connotations that I would personally disassociate myself with. Horizontal meaning that participation is open, rhyzomatic, uncontrollable, decentralized but simultaneously networked. Vertical meaning that points of access are more rigorously structured, that there is an active hierarchy that maintains regulation of the conversation.

I would argue that the very delicacy of the Illegal that Street Art exists in is what keeps the practice more relatively horizontal, participatory and open than what Vandalog establishes as autocratic and dictated by destructive individuals.

I think there is an interesting distinction that arises from this conversation between us that is underlying and has not been clearly stated.
Street Art, the practice of essentially making anything on the street and designating it as work, is horizontal, more open, and delicate.
Graffiti, the practice of typefacing and characters and getting up, which is essentially relegated to the medium of paint and aerosol, is more closed, and attempts to deny its delicacy through hierarchical structuring, through practices of mentoring and through strict codes of action and conduct.

What I find interesting at this, admittedly, extremely general and problematic distinction between the two practices is the inverse of horizontal/vertical thinking given socioeconomic access. Street Art, as it is precariously understood and defined contemporaneously, is for the most part perpetrated by members of a socioeconomic class with access to higher education and opportunity. Put simply, many of the artists went to art school in Undergraduate and Graduate programs and come from secure backgrounds founded in solid careers and families. They are individuals who have permeated the hierarchy of Knowledge, through horizontal organization they have access, entrance and exposure. When they come to practice their work on the streets, there is an absence of urgency that is so palpable and apparent in the Graffiti world. The rules for putting up posters are more lax. This whole tag, throwup, piece, straight letter, production ordering of Graff doesn’t have a direct correspondence in the world of Street Art.

Conversely, Graffiti, which originally was the communication and the assault from the disenfranchised and is mostly still associated with the Ghetto, blue collar, working class, the marginalized, or basically put, those who do not have access to the opportunity and privilege enjoyed by the upper class, is ordered in an extremely vertical fashion and deviation from the hierarchy warrants serious consequences on the street and physical repercussions. The code of graffiti is not relaxed as it is in Street Art, it is instead vigorously upheld.

Essentially, it is interesting to consider that those who have entered and have benefited from the verticality of society, act more freely and horizontally in their actions and applications on the Street. Those who have been denied access by the vertical organization of society vehemently reaffirm the hierarchy in their practice and codification in painting.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/delete08 spoons

Gaia’s points relating to the horizontal/vertical nature of different types of street art, and also bringing class into the analysis are very interesting.

There comes a point quite early on (which I think Gaia acknowledges) when you are looking at such a diverse phenomenon, that where you may be able to identify trends, the value of generalisation is outweighed by the problems it creates in trying to understand the situation. You can’t see the wood for the trees, there are so many exceptions that you can’t make a rule. I also think the situation in NYC is very different to London, we have grasped at the traditions of graffiti but it’s much less formalised than in the States.

Whilst I think there are some aspects of class that have a bearing on this discussion – I certainly think the “art fag” insult is a rough equivalent to “middle class tosser” – it needs to be borne in mind that many (certainly not all) of the graffiti writers are middle class kids themselves. Perhaps they’re posing, perhaps it’s not relevant. At the same time, many street artists are older working class people with families who aren’t interested in crawling about on bridges at stupid o’clock in the morning.

I think that it’s important to understand that the streets belong to all of us and that as such we all have access when and how we want, in a very horizontal way. This has always opened up freedom of expression to working class people or people who never dreamed of going to art college, in ways that provide an immediate (and unmediated) audience. It has always been about possibilities. You don’t need a formal education to express yourself, there are no rules. Once you become part of a tradition, or seek to be part of a style or movement, you have to follow rules and you have to compete. It’s a choice.

In many ways, because street art has not had the time to build up traditions and because many of its least interesting (but possibly numerically superior) participants have not been around long enough to know whose territory they are stumbling into, street art appears to be less vertically structured but perhaps this is just a question of time.
http://flickr.com/gaiastreetart Gaia

Yeah man, absolutely. I love this notion of stumbling upon a spot and not being familiar with the ethics of “respecting” someone’s work. There are a lot of French artists who come over to the states with a philosophy that the streets belong to all, and therefore no one can lay permanent claim to a spot. Versus if someone keeps a spot running consistently it is theirs. Both trains of thought have their values but I think there is a certain naivete on behalf of the newcomers that make the situation more horizontal. Yet I also think this come from their background and understanding of their place in society and aesthetics.

I actually don’t know of too many self proclaimed American and European street artists who haven’t gone to school. Can we list them?
http://www.vandalog.com RJ

Love that post Gaia. Very interesting conclusion. It is definitely curious how those at the bottom of the greater social hierarchy have embraced a new hierarchy, but it is still essentially the same model, while those at the top are breaking down that model.

I think Gaia’s model is a pretty good standard model, which holds up MOST of the time. Of course, there will always be 10 Foots and middle class writers, and those aren’t as well-addressed with what Gaia is suggesting, but I think Gaia’s vertical and horizontal are the ideals of what we expect to see (and, for street art, what we hope to see).

It’s only once these two worlds start to mix, or we get random outliers like buffing or Cap One, that these ideas don’t hold up as well, which is why I still like Spoon’s evolution idea, since it fits more with what really ends up happening.

One thing that it is easy to forget, but Spoons and Gaia you are obviously still aware of, is that most people in the public have no idea what they are looking at. They don’t know the scene, or who is respected by who. The fact is, when somebody random sees work on the street, they just see the work, not the politics behind it. As Gaia says, the newcomers definitely make the scene more horizontal, and that’s great, because that’s how the public sees it and how (ideally) we should as well.

Off the top of my head, I don’t believe Know Hope has any art education beyond high school, but I’d say he’s the exception rather than the rule.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/delete08 spoons

I think you’re spot on RJ, I don’t think there’s one Grand Theory, but there are various overlapping ways to look at the situation. I have to say that class is the core of my political/personal worldview and given the opportunity I’d probably derail this discussion on a complete tangent, but I’ll try to restrain myself!

Inevitably, when you talk about something as big as class it’s the margins that make everything more messy. It’s very difficult to individualise a whole social and economic analysis (i.e. to say one artist is an example of a whole phenomena) and I don’t know the backgrounds of a lot of artists, but how about Part2ism? Grafter? Don? I was painting at TB&TC last weekend (http://www.flickr.com/groups/tbtc) alongside artists from all over the place socially and economically – a totally horizontal street art event if ever there was one.

Another question I suppose is, do you look at the vertical structure of the NYC Graffiti scene as a product of the environment (competition for limited space, territorial claims) or of the class composition of its participants (re-creating their lived social experience)? Or a bit of both?
http://www.vandalog.com RJ

I hadn’t heard of TB&TC. A few nice pieces. That Trans piece in your photostream is cool.

Honestly, I don’t know enough about graffiti to say confidently why the scene is so vertically structured, but I would lean towards the class composition argument. I’d be curious to hear what writers have to say about this.
Gaia

there is more than enough room in New York.

if the room was the issue then street art would be even more competitive since it primarily exists in soho and williamsburg. there are only so many conventional spots in new york.

the competition is insecurity and the delicacy of fame that is only recognized by a subculture