In what follows I offer a summary of the debate, hoping to create some themes for further discussion at our next set of events in the spring, a public lecture by Dr. Jessica Pabón about feminist masculinities in graffiti and the hip hop diaspora, and a series of free workshops for youth led by Chicago artist Stef Garland and Leonese artists Kif, Nikkis, and Wes in collaboration with Pittsburgh organizations and artists (TBD). I will soon write a follow-up post about the symposium.
Participants included
Detective Alphonso Sloan from the Graffiti Task Force; Shane Pilster, graphic
designer, Urban Art Tour organizer at Carrie Furnaces, and graffiti artist;
Mike Mook, tattoo artist, father, and former graffiti artist responsible for
the “Mook Law”; Steve Root, a retired psychotherapist and social worker, who is
a volunteer with the South Side Graffiti Council and the South Side Community
Council Graffiti Watch (GW); Jason Mendez, our moderator, an educator, author,
and interdisciplinary theater artist and parent, who is part of the project
Sons of the Boogie; and myself, an Assistant Professor of Communication at the
University of Pittsburgh with a research program exploring transnational legal
graffiti. We also were aided by the efforts of the William Pitt Debating Union
public debaters; Christ Talbot, Toey Yi, and Aaron Hill, who asked some very
smart and incisive questions.
We began with each panelist offering a short introductory
statement. Jason Mendez discussed his work with Sons of the Boogie, which
included famous and foundational writer Phase 2, who was a master of styles and
pioneer in bubble letters, which later provided a platform for artists like
Jean-Michel Basquiat. Importantly, Mendez explained, Phase 2 distinguishes
between the term writing and graffiti. He would call graffiti the
‘g-word’ instead preferring writing which points to the communicative,
aesthetic, and public richness of the art form. This is a positioned sustained
by many in the aerosol writing community, for example, Desi Wome in the Bay
Area. Mendez continued to discuss Phase 2’s role in creating the first graffiti
zine, International Graffiti Times,
which explored the essence and internal dynamics of the culture. He is
currently working on a memoir about growing up in the South Bronx, how it
figured as home, and the current risks of gentrification as many lose home and
history, or of representational elisions, in such media artifacts like “The Get
Down,” which, Mendez cautioned, romanticizes the 1970s and 1980s in the Bronx.
Detective Sloan opened by highlighting the fact that we was
a writers between the ages of 13 to 21 or 23, stopping when he began working
for the city as a police officer. He argued that he supports urban art, and
public art, which can support knowledge and education. Pittsburgh had a legal
wall in the past, he argued, along the Eliza Furnace Trail, otherwise known as
a the Jail Trail. The hope was to offer artists an outlet and to contain
graffiti. “It had the opposite effect,” Sloan lamented, explaining that in the
early 2000s Pittsburgh saw a spike in graffiti, and artists would come to paint
the permission wall but would also “paint everything on their way in, and on
their way out.” He noted that he
respects artists like Basquiat, Ecko, and Keith Haring who learn how to
transition into legal and commercial venues, like graphic design.
Steve Root opened by defining the South Side Community
Council’s work, and how they began to deal with issues of graffiti. He isolated
“long term working class property owners” as the primary victims of graffiti
vandalism, and that such writing functiosn to devealuetheir property values,
and there is a legal system that fails to hold writers responsible. The Graffiti Watch (GW) seeks to take
responsibility as a community and send the message that the South Side is
valuable. Preventing vandalism, Root continued, is an ongoing process, and he
had no illusions that graffiti could ever be eliminated. Instead, it is a
dialectical relationship with taggers, an ongoing and sustained effort. He
noted, however, that through conversations with Shane Pilster and learning more
about the culture, that graffiti involves intense feelings of place, and
empowerment, and being creative such that the current polarized relationship
between writers and GW does not accomplish goals of inclusion. He was
interested in the Rivers of Steel project, and had also studies legal walls in
Toronto, Montreal, Quebec and Wynwood Walls. Moreover, he acknowledged that
buffing is its own form of graffiti and censorship. It takes place in the idiom
of graffiti, arguably. Instead, he was moving towards a model of ongoing
conversations with the goal of aachieving mutual respect. In that spirit, GW
has enlarged its focus. They want to support creativiting and inclusion, to
celebrate diversity, perhaps in the manner in which property owners have
transformed the Fox way on 20th and 21st street.
Shane Pilster discussed how he arrived in Pittsburgh in 2004
and soon after was arrested for illegal graffiti. He had started writing in San
Francisco between 1998 and 1997. He was required to do a lot of community
service, the result of which is that he now considers himself more of a
“reformed artist” and has been meeting with community groups. This point was
later developed in the debate as a discussion about more effective
penalties—the idea was raised that community service was particularly important
because it helps the writer actually know the communities that they painted
in/on, perhaps fostering more mutual understanding. Shane emphasized that the
history of graffiti is not just tags but it is an art form that spreads through
spaces, and creates opportunities. However, in Pittsburgh, people don’t get to
see a lot of really aesthetically elaborate pieces. This is partially due to a
lack of legal walls. There might be one in Homewood, but that is it. Instead,
to foster dialogue between writers and communities it is important to have several locations, an art walk even,
giving a voice to all sides: the public, business owners, and artists. This, he
concluded, offers a middle ground that can work with everyone.
Mike Mook spoke next. He started writing in 1998 and was
extremely prolific until 2001. He was arrested for lots of writing, and has
since stopped doing illegal graffiti. Now he serves as a sort of liaison
between active writers and offering them legal options. He spoke of his
aspiration for the South Side to turn itno something like Wynwood Walls at Art
Basel.
I spoke last, speaking about the importance of graffiti for
youth expression, and of public art for democratic culture. I spent a couple of
minutes why
a)
the city of Pittsburgh relies on broken windows
theory to justify its anti-graffiti posture
b)
How this concept is flawed, and even dangerous.
I think I will dedicate a separate post to elaborating this
argument, particularly with regard to Pittsburgh.
After the introductions Jason Mendez led a structured
discussion. He first asked about the stigmas that writers face. Shane remarked
that “most people see the ugly stuff” and don’t understand that writing culture
has many facets, such that the tagging is largely the “fame based” part of it.
Most of the public, he lamented, are not educated about the “better end of
things.” They don’t understand that some street art can actually increase
property value- like that of Barry McGee. He also lamented how the media will
lump together writing with gang graffiti, or political graffiti, assuming all
are the same, whether done by a toy or a vandal or someone else. Mook pointed out that graffiti is a “broad
term” that doesn’t capture the nuances of the diversity of hand styles out
there.
Mendez also asked Detective Sloan about stereotypes about
law enforcement that he encounters. Sloan remarked: “There is a sketchy line
between public art and graffiti art—you can have public art on walls, like the
Sprout Fund murals, and we won’t prosecute that. We do prosecute people who
paint without permission.” He also noted that there are ordinances for people
who allow graffiti to remain or occur
on their property. There is a seven year statute of limitations for graffiti
crimes.
Mook also spoke to the question about treating writers with
no priors like violent offenders, and here we had a really interesting
discussion about proportionality and alternative options for legal response. He
pointed out how, when a lot of young writers are prosecuted, they are pressured
to admit to the felony charges to avoid jail time, not really understanding how
that felony record will impact them later in life. Shane added that it is a
proportionality question, that often writers can get more jail time than
violent offenders. A better alternative, he suggested, is for writers to work
in the communities where they painted rather than being sent to jail, because
in working with the communities, they will be better understood as human beings
and neighbors.
Detective Sloan responded that they try to “work with”
offenders. And if the offender is willing to work with them, and is remorseful
they do not push for felonies. “100 misdemeanors does not add up to a felony,”
he emphasized, but instead pointed to a “formula” they had developed based on
the Graffiti Blasters’ costs, which is that damage is $300 for the first square
foot and $50 for every subsequent square foot of damage. We learned later that
these fines are higher if the paint is higher up and harder to reach (to
clean). Once there is over $4,000 square feet of damage it becomes a felony.
Felonies are usually applied, he said, when it is a repeat offender. Moreover,
they do not prosecute for every piece done, they usually stop at a certain
point because they could reach the millions soon, so, for example if a writer
has done “75 pieces we will usually charge them for up to 50 and then stop.”
GEMS, a young CMU student who was arrested months earlier had initially been
fined over $100,000, but they negotiated the fine down to $38,000 and reduced
his felonies to misdemeanors. Montana, on the other hand, who did not work with
the police and and had re-painted when on probation is going to be finedn up to
$700,000, because of lot of damage was to private homes.
Responding to Detective Sloan’s claim that the Eliza Furnace
Trail wall caused an increase in
graffiti both Shane and Mook pointed out that there was a spike in graffiti all
over the US, because it was a time in the early 2000s where instead of trying
to go “all city” writers were vying to paint “all country,” to get their name
up everywhere. So there was a lot of travel for the explicit purpose of
bombing. Though permission walls wont stop all graffiti, Shane added, by having
older more established writers painting there it functions as a draw, where
younger writers will want to watch, learn, and work with them. Back in the day
there was less direct communication, mostly only Myspace.
Mendez also asked Sloan about being an artist of color when
he did graffiti. Sloan noted that when he was painting, especially along the
Busway between 1983 and 1984, most writers were young black kids, but also that
there was a code and they did not paint on private property. The Stanton
Heights Mall was one of the first places where they did graffiti. Mook added
that class differences matter, because the impact of being prosecuted hurts
poorer youth more than wealthier ones.
One of the Pitt Debaters, Chris, asked Shane and Mook if,
given that a lot of writers see graffiti as rebellion, will legal walls satisfy
that need and the thrill-aspect? Both laughed and said no. Root added that
“illegal graffiti has a purpose” enabling a “sense of belonging and a means of
expression.” Shane and Mook also addedthat it is not all or nothing- his work
with Rivers of Steel since 2012 shows how dialogue is key, and once they opened
space and spoke with writer there was much less dialogue- only 10 instances of
vandalism in 4 years.
Debater Toey asked about proof for the broken windows
thesis, and how Sloan distinguishes between graffiti and art. An interesting
distinction that emerged was that, according to Sloan, anything done in aerosol
could be considered graffiti, even if it was image-based. Moreover, he cited a
city ordinance that bans the deployment of large letter-based work in
public. He did not respond to the
question about broken windows theory.
Aaron asked about how de-stigmatize graffiti. Many pointed
to education, Root said that it was important to know the difference between
the “junk” and “genuine art”; Shane references his work with Hip Hop on Lock,
using educaton to bring publics, communities and schools together. Sloan noted
that he doesn’t hate the art, he just hates where it is painted. Root argued
for a policy and procedure liaison with respect to graffiti in each
neighborhood, because, he argued, each neighborhood has special needs and their
character and culture are distinct. He called for communities to take
responsibility by addressing the big picture: race, class, and the development
process, appreciating different motives.
In this debate panelists raised interesting questions about
the difference between “clean” and “messy” walls, activating implicit questions
about what the value (or threat) of “messy” walls are. Moreover, it pointed to
how the law, as written, offers crude distinctions between “graffiti” and “art”
mainly based on medium (aerosol vs. brush) and style (letters vs. images). Of
course, these distinctions do not acknowledge the complexity and nuance of contemporary
writing culture where aerosol can be used to create images, and where (as it
has always been the case) hand styles, lettering, involves high levels of
artistry and skill. Finally, what was interesting was how the current law
incentivizes property owners to act aggressively against graffiti because they get fined for having it on their
walls. This element of the Pittsburgh ordinance (last updated in April 2016)
pits property owners against writers, making dialogue or collaboration less
likely. The ban on text, too, acts as a barrier for permission and commissioned
works on private laws. Crucially, the law is not fixed. It is made by humans,
and it can be changed by humans. The question is, what kind of social model do
we want it to reflect? What kind of art cultures do we want to create?
No comments:
Post a Comment