Art, Community, and the Stories We’re Told

Like many of us expressed, I thought the video was a great illustration of how graffiti and graffiti artists are criminalized. In only a few minutes, the news source managed to weave a layered narrative to convince its audience that graffiti is bad, artless, and harming the community. It incorporated fear, money, concern for city beauty…

It was interesting that the “victims” of this were not only the community members who had to suffer eye sores and pay for graffiti to be painted over, but also the workers whose turmoil is characterized by having to climb a “rocky slope” up to the underpass to paint. The drama of this was ridiculous, because I highly doubt the intended audience of this video would otherwise be concerned about the city workers, except to further their own demands and argument. Over break, I finally read Little Fires Everywhere by Celeste Ng, and seeing this video and seeing this video, especially the way workers were represented, made me think THAT IS SO SHAKER HEIGHTS OF THEM. Where there is a strong narrative of right and wrong, criminal and “good,” and people become instruments to perpetuate it.

Watching the documentary in class that also inspired this group’s topic made me similarly interested in the use and definition of public and private space in gentrified neighborhoods. I believe that graffiti is art that should not be criminalized on the basis of it being graffiti. But what about when it is used in public spaces that the community does not support? And what happens when a neighborhood is gentrified and – as shown in the documentary and discussed in class – the community voice is subjugated by the voice of the gentry?… We know the answer, right?

I thought the facilitation brought up some great ideas and discussion. I personally get uncomfortable with competitive activities, but I think the appeal for funding activity was useful for getting us to think about the topic differently and brought up additional interesting reflections. For example, it was interesting to reflect on the language we used to “sell” our ideas to the funding panel, which brought up thoughts about catering to the system in order to do the work. I also appreciated the exercise of thinking carefully about the terminology we use (e.g. graffiti, street art, murals), and the questions posed, like “What is good for a community,” and “who decides?”

The class also reminded me of a TED Radio Hour interview with the artists Titus Kaphar. His TED talk is below.