Style Wars Analysis

10:10 Mentions exploring the tunnels as tombs under the city
Q: How are these hip-hop kids changing the face of the city; re-imaging and reconstructing the aesthetic of the city?

The people portrayed in this video were re-imagining and reconstructing the aesthetic of the city by adding visual elements of their art to it. They created a whole, ever changing display of art that could be seen by anyone who passed by it (or that was passed by the trains). They took control of what visual elements the citizens of the city saw in their day to day lives. Not only did they create works of art to be viewed every day but they created works of art that moved through the cities, thus spreading their influence to all the neighborhoods that those trains came into contact with instead of just their own neighborhoods.

5:18 “Going all City” 6:10 “it’s a matter of bombing, that I can do it?”
5:21 immortal is brought up, power of the youth
Q: How does hip-hop culture “bomb” the city, remapped and reclaimed control in an otherwise powerless demographic. How does the presence of bodywork, such as break dancing play into the language of freedom?

The hip hop culture “bombs” the city by creating a form of art and expression that is hard for outside forces to control. The entire documentary shows the efforts of the transit authority to find ways to control the uncontrollable will of the graffiti artists. The graffiti artists are expressing their ability to be free to make art whether authority figures want them to or not. Break dancing plays into this idea in the way that they are exploring ways to move their bodies and create new dances despite what was considered conventional dancing before. The only limitation to break dancing lies within the dancer's ability to control his/her body and nowhere else.

19:15: the mother says her son owns nothing in the subway.
Q: Is graffiti and tagging an attempt at ownership, born from a demographic that owns close to nothing historically? How can this be contrasted, with say, the modern day Banksy (see URLS HERE: Banksy in Bethlehem, Santa's Ghetto 2007 (Banksy), Banksy the Artist/New Yorker ), whose works are collected all over the world (and probably has less “ownership” economic hardships than the men in this movie?)? Why does Banksy continue to choose corporate spaces, or perhaps the “security” walls of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank, as site for graffiti? Is tagging/defacing public/private property a means for exercising power? Does it extend, rebel or re-define the meaning of “owning” and if so, how so? If not, why?

I don't believe that the type of graffiti and tagging present in this documentary are so much attempts at ownerships but more of an attempt at self promotion and proving an artistic aptitude. To me the idea of graffiti as a way of ownership brings to mind the use of graffiti by gangs to map out their territory to exercise their power and existence to others. The graffiti artists in the Style Wars documentary are not in any way trying to map out a territory but are trying to express their art. The fact that their main focus seemed to be on tagging trains that are moving objects instead of trying to define their neighborhoods with art would reinforce my belief that it is more of an attempt at expressing themselves in the biggest way possible than an attempt at ownership. The only attempts at a claim to ownership is when it comes to their use of names in their work and the developments of their different styles. These could very well be attempts at ownerships in their own ways. The way that art historians look at certain painters to look at where certain styles evolved, the same could be done with the art of these graffiti artists.

Banksy is a deeply contrasting artist compared to those portrayed in Style Wars. Banksy uses his art work to make commentaries about his views on society while the artists in the documentary are making art as a way of expressing their abilities and to compete with one another. Banksy's choice to pick corporate spaces could be seen as a rebellion against corporations. The idea of damaging a companies property is often seen as less of an offense than damaging a privately owned piece of property.
19:00-20:55 Watch this part and refer to the question
Q: How does the imaging of hip-hop culture defy societal expectations and stereotypes of social scales? Why do you believe affluent/white kids attracted to graffiti?

The hip-hop subculture is often seen as a culture associated with vandalism and crime but in truth it is an expression of art, whether it be a painted art form or a performance art form. Even the parents of the kids in the videos did not understand their forms of expression and didn't see the movement that their kids were involved in creating. The hip-hop culture is often seen as a product of the lower class and therefore is not often identified with art. Although art is a universal product, it is often perceived as a pursuit of higher classes and hip hop is, therefore, stereotyped along with this view. Affluent and white kids may be attracted to graffiti because they see it as a way to rebel against society. No matter what social class there is usually an attraction for teenagers to try to rebel from their parents and their social classes.

4:15 “Make your Mark in Society, not on Society” …comments.
Q: Please comment on how these hip-hop artists use their own body as a means to activate, penetrate, and shift the physical, social and political space of the city. Remember, graffiti is only one element to the puzzle of hip-hop culture on these aforementioned spaces.

Hip-hop artists use their own bodies as a means to shift the physical, social, and political spaces of their city by doing whatever is within their means to express themselves. In the documentary the slogan of “make your mark in society, not on society” seems to be putting forth the notion that the hip-hop culture of graffiti is not a means to create a change in society but the reaction of the rest of society to the hip-hop society seems to be doing that. The other elements of the hip-hop culture also creates changes in the way that the lower, less advantaged classes were spending their times and efforts. They spent so much energy on trying to express themselves and creating this ever evolving culture as a means of something to occupy themselves. Several times in the videos it was mentioned that graffiti and break dancing were ways to keep out of trouble and occupy their time, that although they were being perceived as destructive they were actually a way of avoiding hobbies that were more destructive.
42:24 “Yeah, I vandalism (sic), but I did something to make your eyes open up, right? So what are you talking about it for?”
Q: What is his point, and do you agree?

I believe his point is that his work may be vandalism but he sees it as bettering the city by creating something to create diversity in the every day life of people who see it. The statement of “so what are you talking about it for?” maybe his way of saying that he doesn't see the need for such controversy surrounding the work he's done and the effect he's had. I do see his point about it but at the same time I feel like his disregard for the fact that they are vandalizing property that doesn't belong to them is wrong.
43:40- 48:31 Artist vs. Bomber- (artists sprays “burner” –like a complex graffiti art piece, and a “bomber” as is it is used here, can either be tagging, or going over the burns).
Q: Discuss this war in terms of social space. More vs. Quality. What is more important, and can you discuss it with other parallels in terms of social power and a platform for notoriety. Is one cultural, and the other, something else?

The war that was portrayed in Style Wars of more vs quality is hard to classify in terms of which approach is more important. The approach of more is an attempt at striving for more notoriety while the approach of quality is an attempt at making better pieces at the expense of having fewer of them and therefore maybe they won't be noticed. Both approaches can create a respect and recognition between writers. In my opinion however, the approach of quality is a more cultural approach because it attempts to better the art movement and to create something new and ever evolving while striving for more notoriety can only last for so long before it has to either die out of evolve into something else to maintain its impact.

49:95.  Watch the gallery scene.
Do you agree that it holds the same intensity when it is “peeled off the train?” Is the art the expression and form, or does it only exist in the high stakes theater of illegal activity and claiming of public/private spaces?

The art on the walls of a gallery creates a more exclusive audience and therefore may change the art's meaning. Context is a large part of art and once it is removed from its intended audience and designated locations it can lose some of its meaning and impact. The graffiti on the sides of a train may mean one thing to those who see it but place it in a gallery and it is approached with a different mind set when viewed. The graffiti in its original context may only speak to those who are in the hip-hop and graffiti art movement but once placed on a gallery wall it is designated for a different audience of art lovers to interpret and experience.

It should be noted that a city/space is planned and designed by those who have power; that design/aesthetics  equals our everyday experience of it. However, we the people, are not in control of what our city look and functions like. How do these artist claim the public spaces (even if on private buildings, cars, etc). Do they have as much right to reinterpret how a city looks, and whom it reflects?

These artists claim public space by creating a visual impact on their surroundings. They may not have a hand in the way the city is built or maintained but they do have a hand in how they interact with the spaces they are in. I believe that they do have a right to control how the city looks, even if the government has a different say on the subject, but the vandalism aspect of their art does not sit well with me. If society was to ignore the graffiti writing on trains, and public spaces what is to stop them from moving on to privately owned properties, cars etc. there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The city planners just happen to draw the line a little more extreme than the graffiti artists deem fair.