Posted by sek8 at March 4th, 2007

NYC GRAFFITTI

In 1984, a group of about 200 hotel managers and their spouses from Europe and the Middle East came to visit New York for a weekend. The prestigious group stayed at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel. On one night, they were to be carried by subway train to the World Trade Center, where they were to eat at the Windows on the World Restaurant. Afraid that a graffiti covered subway train would present the visitors with an unappealing image of the city, the travel agency chartered a graffiti-free train. “We wanted to show them the ideal New York City,” explained the creative director for the agency. To their surprise, however, many of the guests were disappointed by this arrangement. “It’s very disappointing not to have something that’s part of the local color,” commented one guest from Germany. Another guest agreed, saying, “We have graffiti on our monuments in Rome and we don’t whitewash them when Americans come over…The subway should be like it is, not like it should be.”
The day after the article containing these comments ran in the New York Times, a response in the editorial section entitled “Dear Deprived Hoteliers” read, “you didn’t miss a thing. The trains are an unsightly mess and imply that no one’s in charge and no one cares enough except to shield distinguished visitors.” This city resident’s views reflect the principles that generally guide New York City policy makers. Within the government, the people who think of graffiti as “local color” are in the minority. This general bias translates into very little tolerance for graffiti in the cities policies. The definition of graffiti used by the city does not take into account graffiti’s long history in New York or any of its merits as art form or social movement. The city’s approach to the graffiti problem is overly simplistic. Policies that incorporate careful analysis of graffiti’s merits and potential would lead to a more productive use of the city’s resources and would benefit both graffiti artists and the general population.
Since the late eighties, New York City’s policy on graffiti has been based on the “broken windows” thesis. This theory, introduced in 1982 in Atlantic Monthly by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, argues that small, non-violent crimes such as graffiti increase overall crime. The theory reasons that if minor signs of decay or disorder, such as broken windows, litter, and graffiti are left unfixed, potential criminals assume that chaos reigns, and commit more crimes. As Lieutenant Steve Mona of the New York City Vandal Squad explains to sixth graders in his anti-graffiti outreach program, “[Graffiti] gives the look of disorder, as if nobody is in control. Graffiti is the first sign that a neighborhood is falling apart.” As Wilson and Kelley put it, “One unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, so breaking more windows costs nothing.” In the mid-nineties, this theory became the cornerstone of the New York City “Quality of Life” initiative under Mayor Giuliani, including his establishment of an Anti-Graffiti Task Force in 1995 with Executive Order Number 24. The city of New York has spent a large amount of time and money fighting graffiti because the government believes, as the “broken windows” thesis predicts, that these efforts will send a message that there is someone in charge and reduce overall crime. Although the application of the “broken windows” thesis is credited by some as being the cause for the fall in crime in New York during the late nineties, there is little evidence supporting this. Instead, many sociologists and criminologists attribute the fall in
crime to a collection of causes, only one of which is the attention to small, visible crime by the police force.
Of these small crimes, graffiti gets a particularly bad rap from the New York City “Quality of Life” initiative. According to a website posted by the NYC Transit Authority, “graffiti has long been viewed as the most obvious sign of urban blight, and has generated an exaggerated impression of public disorder.” Reasons for concern about the presence of graffiti expressed by the Mayor include that graffiti is a threat to the “quality of life” in the city, that it creates an impression of “disorder and chaos;” that graffiti serves as a type of gateway crime, leading to greater acts of crime and violence; that the damage caused by graffiti vandalism causes millions of dollars of damage to property holders and to the city; and that graffiti “tags” are a means of communication of for gangs and drug dealers.
While the mayor’s contentions are valid, they only refer to the most degenerate types of graffiti. His policy places an implicit judgment on the merits of all graffiti. This judgment is, of course, that graffiti has no merit. It lumps together all forms of graffiti, artistic, meaningful, gang or drug related, into one undesirable group. This attitude towards graffiti oversimplifies the realities of street art and lead to ineffective policy decisions. Graffiti artist Dmitri Wright distinguishes between different forms of graffiti,
[Graffiti] has a multitude of forms and meanings. It’s just that a lot of the connotations of the art form and how it is linked to the streets and street culture create a divide … However, all they [opponents] need to do is look at some of it. It is absolutely spectacular, but sometimes people can’t get past their own culture.

Crime-related graffiti and graffiti-art need to be separated in the minds of New York City administrators. A struggle between graffiti’s costs and benefits lies at the heart of the graffiti controversy. While policy makers would argue that graffiti has no value, they are overlooking its artistic merits and its roots in a grassroots social movement of young people in the seventies and eighties. New York graffiti-art is a vital and dynamic art form, native to New York in its methods and content. Although it emerged as an illegal form of expression its influences are increasingly present in the art world and many graffiti artists are commissioned to paint large scale productions that are impressive not only in their size, but also in their artistic themes, styles, and techniques. Graffiti art on canvas sells for up to tens of thousands per piece. In the right context, graffiti-style art can become a powerful tool to promote New York City identity and originality, as well as becoming a link between the inner city streets that give birth to graffiti artists and the rest of the city.
A zero-tolerance attitude towards graffiti may not be the most effective or productive way to approach and handle the graffiti-vandalism issue. If distinctions were to be made between types of graffiti, artists could be discouraged to paint where their work is unwelcome and encouraged to paint in spaces devoted to the form. Administrators and the city could benefit from beautiful graffiti art and, at the same time, form a bond with young graffiti artists instead of isolating them. Overall graffiti would be reduced, and the city could focus on prosecuting people who use the form to promote drugs, gangs, and crime.
New York graffiti emerged as an issue in the early 1970’s. Up until the seventies, graffiti was generally limited to drawing mustaches or obscenities on posters in magic marker. Taki 183 was graffiti’s first poster boy. In 1971 he left his mark on the city by writing his name: “Taki” the “traditional Greek diminutive for Demetrius, his real first name” and the number of his street “183” everywhere he went. The “patron saint” of graffiti, Taki was glorified by droves of imitators and even an article in the New York Times: “‘Taki 183’ Spawns Pen Pals.” In 1971 spray paint had not yet emerged as the graffitist’s or “writer’s” medium of choice. After Taki, the amount of graffiti in the city, especially on the subways, exploded. In 1970 the Transit Authority spent $250,000 removing graffiti from train cares and buses, by 1971 that number had doubled to $500,000. By February of 1972, graffiti was reaching epidemic proportions in the city. The most common form of graffiti was “tagging,” writing ones name in simple letters and styles. Writers often choose a tag name, usually three to five letters, that they feel expresses themselves. Writing numbers with their names was also common, as Taki demonstrated. Writing was not confined to any one group except for young people, as evidenced by one policeman who reported that he had caught “teenagers from all parts of the city, all races and religions and all economic classes” writing all over the city, very often in the subways.
As graffiti became more common in New York, spray paint emerged as a new and powerful tool for the graffiti writer. Spray paint has unique advantages; it covers uneven surfaces well, and is quick and easy to use. Surfaces that were previously inaccessible became huge blank canvases. A new style emerged with spray paint; the letters and pictures went from generally small to enormous, some tags covering the entire side of subway cars. The “throw-up” or “throwie” is a large scale tag, usually done in large open bubble letters. One variation of the throw-up is the “fill-in,” a throw-up that is filled in, usually in a different color than the out line. As with tags, throw-ups are done quickly and en-masse, the point being to publicize your name to as many people as possible; this large scale advertisement is know as “getting-up”. Putting your tag or throw-up in as many places as possible in an attempt to achieve fame or notoriety is called “bombing.” In the era of bombing subway trains, many writers were involved in “wars” or competitions to get your name up more than your competition. “Buffing” is when one writer paints over the writing of another and is considered a sign of disrespect. The documentary “Style Wars,” first aired in 1983 on PBS, chronicles the wars between different artists in New York. In the seventies, many writers concentrated their writing in the subways; subway cars were the ideal canvas for bombing, they moved around the city displaying the work of the writers to millions. The number 2 and 5 lines were particularly favored by writers because of the length and span of their routes. The subways were also a uniting force for writers in the five boroughs and spawned inter-borough competition. In 1982 it was generally thought that the city was fighting a losing battle against the epidemic of underground graffiti. By 1989, however, the city declared its subways free of graffiti. The City had effectively enforced a policy that did not let subway cars with graffiti on the outside run. This victory was muted, however, by graffiti’s move to above-ground venues such as the sides of buildings and highway overpasses. Graffiti remained a policy and “quality of life” issue into Mayor Giuliani’s term and even to today.
As graffiti evolved, styles emerged that were complicated and hard to achieve. Style is the most important element in graffiti and the continuous production of innovative and unique styles is the hallmark of a talented graffiti artist. Styles are often thought of as regional, Bronx, Brooklyn, and Broadway styles are examples. Wild style , the most common of the more complicated graffiti styles, entails letters that are artistically intertwined, have embellishments such as tails and arrows, and are expressive of mood and movement to the viewer. Another innovation that enhanced the productions was 3-D style lettering. Three-dimensional style quickly caught on and can be seen in most large scale productions to this day. With the advent of higher styles such as wild style, artists began producing what are know as “pieces” or “large-scale productions” which are now considered the pinnacle of the art form. In a “piece” or even a “masterpiece,” the artist uses many colors and pays particular attention to composition. Early on, the most common canvas for a piece was the side of a subway car. Pieces that encompassed whole cars or multiple cars were termed “top-to bottoms.” Pieces often mix a scene that may contain figures, in either cartoon like or realistic styles, elaborate background scenes, and lettering. Many large-scale productions are produced by a group of graffiti artists, called a “crew.” Crews are led by a “king” or “queen,” an artist with superior technical as well as leadership skills. Working with a crew helps a young novice learn to paint. Members of a crew often have specific talents, such as backgrounds, figures, or lettering.
The beautiful graffiti art that can be found today throughout the city, on commissioned walls and in art galleries, is an expression of New York like no other art form. It artists come either from the city itself or are drawn to the city from around the world. The themes in the art are undeniable a reflection of social factors at play in New York, and issues that affect New York’s youths and makes them desire to speak out and have their messages heard. The powerful use of color in pieces and large-scale productions stand as a powerful reaction to the dull gray and brown environment of the city. Graffiti art is unique in its faithfulness to powerful style, composition and color. Many graffiti artists think and hope that graffiti will become a recognized and respected art form. Artist KING BEE explains,
I put a high price on my work, so that people will begin to see and understand that this art form is time-consuming, and therefore, expensive. In time, every major person will view graffiti art as a respectful form of art, just like pop art, visual art, impressionist, or abstract art.

In their piece “Underground Writers,” the UW crew provides an example of a large-scale production that is stunningly artistic and symbolic in its imagery as well as specific to New York in its meaning. The large production displays an underground scene overflowing with bright orange toxic waste with graffiti characters of many different styles melting into the ooze. Many spray paint cans are shown floating in the sewage that appears to be the built up spray paint of many generations. One of the artists in the crew, VASE, explains,
The wall is supposed to represent all the years that N.Y. has been bombed with graffiti. The graffiti is actually melting off the walls into the sewer. In the sewer is graffiti from generations of other writers, periods of bombing, bombing sprees, massive whole cars and massive productions. There is all this toxic waste coming out from the walls, leaking into the sewer, all the original formats of graffiti.

This production, representative of generations of graffiti writers and specific in its portrayal of New York graffiti styles is unique to New York City in its symbolism and style. Ninja figures are shown lying in wait for artists to descend into the sewers. “The ninja guys are spotters looking for the underground writers…They’ve got to come down to the real shit. If they want us, they’ve got to come down to the sewer.” VASE’s words are both true of the piece and true of reality. Many talented writers come out of the “sewers” of New York City, with graffiti writing being the only artistic outlet they have ever encountered. The police want to eliminate
the writing culture but to do so they really have to plumb the depths of the New York City street culture in an attempt to do so.
Another striking example of New York specific symbolism can be found in a production by the FX crew. The liberty symbol created by CES, a member of FX, is both grotesque in its imagery and evocative in its meaning. The Statue of Liberty is shown with a decaying skull face and what appears to be drug paraphernalia held high it its right hand. The message of the figure is clear, representative of the decay of the city and the harmful appeal of drugs in our culture. It is interesting to note that while many associate graffiti with drugs and gangs, in their production the FX crew is making a clear statement that is against drugs and in agreement with policy makers and parents. In their commentary in their book Broken Windows, James and Karla Murray explain, “the depiction of terrifying characters and scenes of devastation combined with fiercely kinetic lettering is a poignant commentary on the realities of urban life.” One such scene can be seen in the production, “Urban Wasteland,” a combined effort of the KD, TNB, FC, and COD crews. The production depicts a beautiful and colorful mix of animal and plant imagery and characters to the left of the piece and then a desolate city expanse limited in its coloration to black and orange to the right. The shocking contrast not only leaves a powerful mark in the viewer’s mind but also carries a strongly cautionary message. While the left side of the piece displays a variety of plant and animal figures beautifully rendered, the right is devoid of life except for frightening, snarling black wolves and dead and leafless trees shown in profile. Crooked street lamps and buildings and an image of a broken Brooklyn Bridge complete the effect. Artist COPE 2 said about the piece:
This wall represents the whole world and all the life that’s in it. The left side of it shows all the colorful plants and animals, while the right side shows what will happen to the world if we don’t take care of it. It sends a message that the world will turn into and urban wasteland if we don’t take care of it.

As “Urban Wasteland” demonstrates, many of the large-scale productions that can be found in the city, far from being gang related, are rather dedicated to powerful social issues of the city. Though their messages may be the same, ties between the city and graffiti artists are rarely sought after and never formed, even though many socially influenced pieces display the potential for creating such bonds.
Along with its artistic merits, the graffiti that came out of New York during the seventies and eighties held a psychological importance not only for the writers, but also for subway riders in an increasingly commercialized and homogenized environment. Many contend that graffiti arose out of a need for identity among an increasingly alienated youth. In his article about the psychology of vandalism, Robin Herman presented the statistic that “vandals are usually teen-age males with time on their hands and a feeling of alienation, a breakdown of the bonds that give individuals a stake in society” (The term “vandals” in the context of the article included but was not confined to graffitists). The graffiti that became so common in the seventies and eighties was graffiti only for the sake of destroying public and private properties. Unlike previous graffiti, the vast majority was not obscene or intended to be ugly. The names and nicknames scrawled all over the city were a ubiquitous call for a voice, for an identity. The graffiti emerging in the seventies was an orgy of “pure primitive estheticism and self-advertisement.” Book reviewer Corinne Robins mused in 1974, “The paint-covered walls, cars and buses are evidence of excess energy, of vitality making outlets for itself. The graffiti, the minor media wonder of the seventies, are not smut but a litany of names, and this is what surprises us.” But is this so surprising? Suddenly, kids who had nothing more than ingenuity, were gaining recognition as minor celebrities and even were the subject of articles in such prestigious papers as the New York Times. This power to form their own identities was intoxicating and for many, graffiti became not only an outlet, but an addiction. The writers had found “an exciting outlet for their rage for identity,” they were not about to stop. “Graffiti writing is a way of gaining status in a society where to own property is to have an identity,” explained one crew leader in 1979. Another writer, Cool Earl, said, “I started writing …to prove to people who I was. You go somewhere and you get your name up there and people know you were there, that you weren’t afraid.” In fact, when asked why they do graffiti, many writers admit that it comes from a desire for name recognition or individuality. Graffiti artist, KING BEE, explains, “In the world of graff, every writer or artist, one way or another participates in the fame game. They all seek recognition for their creativity in the who’s who in the graff game.”
Graffiti writing also grew out of a reaction to the fact that the city was increasingly covered in advertisements. Kids took from the moving advertisements on the sides of buses the idea to advertise themselves. Graffiti was “a reaction to the advertising graffiti, the subway placards, the comic books and TV advertising that fence in our lives.” The New York City government did not seem to see the connection between the rise of advertising saturating the American landscape and the increasing saturation of the city with graffiti. David Schmidlatt, publisher of IGT, originally International Graffiti Times, said about the authorities, “They only care about their vision of the city, the corporate vision, not what the people want. This wasn’t planted by the Communists. [Graffiti] grows out of our society in New York, the yearning of the young to express themselves.” It was a natural progression that the youth of the day would incorporate the same tools to sell themselves that the corporations had started using to sell products of all kinds to the public.
Along with playing an important role in the psychology of the writers themselves, graffiti also had an effect on the psychologies of the people riding the trains in the seventies and eighties. The reaction to the graffiti by some was one of disgust and fear. Many New Yorkers felt as the government did, that graffiti was a sign that the city was out of control. However, some others found the new colorful graffiti to be a welcome relief from the monotony of the landscape of the city and subways. Pop artist Claes Oldenburg said, “You’re standing in a subway station, everything is gray and gloomy, and all of a sudden one of those graffiti trains slides in and brightens the place like a big bouquet from Latin America.” In an environment dominated by browns and grays, graffiti artists chose to use bright colors and bold contrasts, producing a startling effect. In a letter to the editor a New Jersey resident applauded the graffitists on changing an “otherwise depressing, dank environment into something which at least has association, color and vitality.” Another letter read,
As a social phenomenon, it is heartening to see individuals invent ways to humanize the brutally impersonal and mechanical environment of the trains and stations, through personal, passionate statements. I find them much less an assault on the senses than the exploitative and degrading ads.

Accounts like these were common in the nascent days of the more colorful and larger forms of graffiti. In fact, letters of opposition to the graffiti targeted only lower forms of graffiti, especially graffiti within the subway cars, which was increasingly looked down on by graffiti artists themselves. Writing over subway maps was particularly odious to riders and writers alike. It seems that only the government had an opposition to the beautiful top-to-bottoms that were becoming the masterpieces of New York City’s graffiti artists.
The graffiti that has come out of New York since the seventies also merits value as it holds a specific significance in Hip-Hop culture. The original hip-hop triad consisted of break-dancing, rap music, and graffiti art. While break dancing went out of fashion in the eighties, rap music has gone on to be a dominating force in popular music, and graffiti art is alive and well in New York City and around the world. Just as rap went from an outlet of angst and emotion among kids in the street to a popular culture phenomenon, graffiti could be harnessed as a force to alter children’s lives, hopefully for the better. The origination of a beautiful and unique art form in New York City should be celebrated and legitimized so as to provide a benefit to both the city and the artists. Already one of the cultural centers of the world, New York could add graffiti art to its list of “uniquities.”
A first step towards using graffiti art to the benefit of the city is separating in the public’s eye graffiti-style art and criminal graffiti. Just as rap is increasingly viewed as legitimate art form and musical genre, perceptions of graffiti-art could be transformed in the city’s consciousness. Graffiti artist Dmitri Wright explains, “I personally make the distinction between graffiti as a form of art and graffiti that is an ugly tag, but many people ‘throw the baby out with the bath water.’ They say, if it’s graffiti it is bad and if it’s rap it is bad.” As graffiti artists SMITH and SANE contend,
With the help of journals which cater to upper middle class like the New York Times, they have succeeded in giving our art the “vandalistic blight” image…The New York Times fails to mention pieces, thus effectively keeping the public image of our art to tags.

Even the police often fail to make distinctions between graffiti-style, legal artwork and vandalism. Artists are often harassed by police even when working on commissioned walls. If a distinction were to be made, legitimate graffiti artists could become positive role models for the cities young people.
The judgment that the city places on graffiti of all kinds is easily inferred from laws that make it illegal for young people to obtain graffiti supplies. With legal graffiti style art not an alternative, illegal graffiti becomes attractive to rebellious youths. The current New York City law (10-117.c) states that “no person shall sell or offer to sell an aerosol spray paint can, [or] broad tipped indelible marker or etching acid to any person under eighteen years of age.” Laws that criminalize even the intent to participate in the art for, not only encourage young people to steal the paint and markers, but also propagate the thrill of “beating the system” that many graffiti writers cite as one of their motives for writing. There are laws that attempt to minimize the stealing of paint by adolescents, such the law 10-117.d that states, “All persons who sell or offer for sail spray paint cans… shall not place such cans… on display and may display only facsimiles of such cans… containing no paint.” These laws are apparently ineffectual however, as evidenced by the prevalence of graffiti that is present in the city, as well as graffiti’s continual presence as a “quality of life” issue in the city of New York.
There should be more productive ways to combat graffiti than simply banning it. From almost the beginning of the graffiti crisis in New York City people have suggested alternatives to the zero-tolerance policy. The most common alternative suggested is creating a legitimate outlet for the graffiti urges of young people. Stockholm has a Klotterplank, or “scribbleboard,” where the citizens of the city are free to graffiti their thoughts on any number of topics. Philadelphia, which also had a graffiti epidemic concurrent with New York’s, ran a workshop in which known writers were encouraged to paint fences around construction sites and participate in a contest to create a design to be painted on a city bus. A letter to the editor in the New York Times in 1972 suggested that a number of billboards or subway stations be allocated to giving graffiti a place another, also in 1972, suggested that the MTA run a weekly “Graffiti special,” equipped with markers and paint. Some private groups have put this concept into action. The Phun Phactory in Long Island City, Queens, is one such organization. Pat DiLillo, the founder of The Phun Phactory explains the logic behind his organization:
My idea for the Phun Phactory came after an unrelenting and fruitless battle against the illegal graffiti covering my neighborhood. I figured if I created a place for the young people to paint then it would eliminate the illegal graffiti…They got to give these kids an outlet or they are going to explode… Many of these artists start out as vandals. There is nothing for them to do; there’s no youth programs or anything.

The same logic could be applied to the city on a large scale basis using the subway trains as a canvas for the talented youth of the city. Subway trains would be the perfect canvas for commissioned graffiti. Having effectively eliminated graffiti on the outside of subway cars since 1989, the city could now give the trains back to artist. This move would not only deter graffiti in other venues, but would also make New York City subways a unique tourist attraction in their own right. The appeal to artists would be great. As graffiti artist WEST ONE puts it, “When trains ran, painting a wall was some weak shit. Like why would you paint a wall, when you could paint a train.” Writers SMITH and SANE speak of the appeal that legitimate subway painting would hold for writers,
What writer, if given the option of painting trains without the fear of getting caught or buffed, could refuse? But now the artists have been rejected by the system, which makes them revenge their art works by ink-bombing, vandalizing trains, or completely giving up.

By providing an appealing and legal alternative to illegal graffiti writing, the city could form an accord with the underground art movement. Many writers report that a lot of the appeal of graffiti is the illegality of it, but many others are enticed by the art itself and enjoy doing legal large scale productions on commissioned walls. Under the supervision of the city, up and coming artists could be allowed to paint large-scale productions on subway trains again. A museum of moving, New York-art could circulate under the city. Artists that are driven to graffiti by the desire for fame could aspire to paint trains and work with the city, not against it. Kids who look up to siblings or friends who do graffiti could be convinced that there is a future in the art form.
The approach to controlling graffiti in New York overlooks the merits that graffiti has as an art form, social criticism, and part of hip-hop culture. With the right policies, the city could benefit from graffiti art and decrease unwanted illegal graffiti. By providing a legitimate outlet for the artistic impulses of the city’s youth, such as commissioned subway trains, the city could form a bond with that generation as well as gain a beautified subway fleet. Graffiti does have value; this admission would provide the first step towards harnessing the positive potential of New York City’s graffiti. The question that remains is simply what kind of city New Yorkers want to live in. As graffiti researcher Joe Austin muses, “What would a wildly decorated city look like?” Why not find out?