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.