It's All Relative

I watched a documentary this afternoon about graffiti and street art, and it raised a lot of questions about our mainstream. To some, graffiti is vandalism; it is an ugly defacement of public property and an attack on orderly society. To others, it is art, plain and simple. It is a gift, giving color and vibrancy to what was previously just an ugly wall, fence, or abandoned building. I think both perspectives can be right, and it is simply a matter of what we consider beautiful. Who declared that the original way a wall is erected is its most beautiful state? Or that an abandoned building should be left to crumble rather than adorned as it goes down? There is a class issue there; walls and buildings are rarely left abandoned in upper class neighborhoods. Those who grow up in lower class neighborhoods see tagging and street art as a way to assert their identity in a system that tries to make them invisible, as a way to reclaim and make more beautiful that which was left to crumble in their streets by those moved on to more prosperous places, and even as a way to entertain themselves in communities without parks or playgrounds or after school programs. Frankly I find it very hard to condemn that.

However, we accept billboards and ads without question. Multiple people in the documentary compared the proliferation of billboards to visual pollution. Ads are often ugly and offensive, and yet we are forced to look at them because the company has purchased the space on that billboard, and therefore they can do whatever they want with it, regardless of the feelings of those forced to see it. One man raised this great argument: With ads and commercials on tv, it's different. It's like a deal is made with the tv company: they provide you with the tv show, but if you want to see that you have to see their ads as well, and if you don't want to see the commercials you can turn off the tv, but then you don't get to see the show either. With billboards, no such deal exists. You have to see the ad, it's too big to ignore, and no one cares whether you want to see a large picture of a woman in her underwear or not, because you're going to anyway. Another man likened it to being raped: billboards are forcing sexual images on him that he doesn't want to see, that it will sometimes take him days to get out of his mind, but because those companies have the money to buy that ad space nobody questions it, and yet art is illegal? Who made this system?

There is also the obvious aspect of rebellion. Graffiti is a way for those without voices to lash out against the structural violence of the society that has otherwise rendered them voiceless. It is their way to fight against a corrupt society, it is an act of war. In South Africa, graffiti proliferated during the anti-apartheid movement. It was a way for the powerless to speak out against the government oppressing them with minimal risk, and it was considered a political crime. Today, in all countries, I think it still is, though it is rarely perceived that way. We see it is illegal, straightforward defacing of public property, a violation of the law and therefore unwelcome in our society. But then again, feeding the homeless is also illegal in some major cities, and yet billboards forcing sexual images on people are perfectly ok, as is patenting seeds and forcing small farmers out of business, and denying schools in poor neighborhoods access to good materials, and harassing immigrants, and putting deadly chemicals in foods. I could go on. I believe in respecting the law, except where in conflicts with God's law, but in a society whose very structure are so harmful and unfair, how much is the law to be respected? How can I respect a system which harms so many to profit so few? I think we need to rethink what is criminalized in our society, and why street art is so criminalized while so many more harmful acts pass unnoticed under our noses.