Style Wars Analysis

The movie in discussion is that of Style Wars, a film documenting the hip-hop culture of the 1970’s and 1980’s. The film gives us the perspectives of both sides of the fence; that being video time of the young urban youth and that of the politicians of which whom they are fighting against. In question is the art form known as graffiti. Developing in New York City, first just being name tagging, graffiti has expanded into a worldwide accepted art form. Below are my responses to the discussion questions at hand.
By exploring these old tunnels, they are bringing them back to life with their art work. These graffiti artists are making people examine parts of the city they never have with a new perspective. These kids do not feel they are defacing the city with their art, but exploring it and beautifying it; adding new color and new life.
Hip-hop culture of this era found ways to express themselves, and by doing so, they empowered themselves. . By “bombing” the city with not just graffiti, but with their entire culture, these kids were able to finally bring their ideals to the public. Through their dancing, their tagging, and their music, the hip-hop scene was able to finally be seen; legitimizing them more and more. Each art was a form used in its own way to express, helping to push this new ideal; style; way of life. They were a subculture and obviously felt outcasted by society. Diverging into a unique culture, and finding others who want to do so, allow these youth to expand; power in numbers. Eventually the public had to respond.
I think graffiti for these people was a way of breaking out; showing that there were no boundaries and they were not afraid. The demographic associated with this scene has something to do with the culture, but I do not agree that it was born for the reason that this demographic owned close to nothing historically. I feel the psychological purpose of bombing was to make sure that your name was seen; so that people knew you existed; not necessarily to take ownership of something, even though that is mentioned in the movie. But by ownership of certain trains or certain areas, I feel these kids meant that is just where they could be seen. They obviously do not have physical ownership of anything, including their paintings, as they would get written over or cleaned. There would be no Bansky without the starting of this culture during this era. Bansky is banking on an ease of times, as graffiti is not historically accepted. Banksy still understands the original motive of the movement, thus for his choosing of locations that seem to be political. Once finally accepted by society, graffiti could now not just get your name out there, but your message. And if you are good enough at what you do, like Bansky, people will listen.
To determine if tagging is a form vandalism, one must look at the individual piece of work. If the work is profane, or destructive, then yes it is vandalism. But, there were and are artists that respect that these works are in public, and also, because of this, make works with more meaning than just having their name written somewhere. Graffiti will always question power, it is in its nature; There will always be people who enjoy it and others who do not. It is the same as any other art form. By ownership, again, weren’t talking about physical ownership. It Is ownership of a visual space because that is where their work is being displayed. I do not feel they were putting their names on the A train and then saying “I own the A train” in the sense that now if someone wants the A train, they must purchase from them. Again, it is an ownership of visual space.
The urban youth are always under attack by society, yet they always seem to be the trend setters. Because a scene is started by a less fortunate urban youth, then yes, this means society will stereotype that scene with ethnic urban youth and the values attached. White kids become interested because it is cool. They are rebelling against their own culture and try find comfort in a new subculture. You can see this in America today, for example, with the flat-brim baseball hat; a trend started by ethnic urban youth, stolen by white middle class America.
The best way to get your message out there is to speak it and the hip-hop culture found its own voice in what is now called rap. By having their own music genre, this scene can articulate to the masses, convey morals, inform, etc… especially if this music is beat driven, aggressive and loud. And always with music, comes dance. Breakdancing is used to empower hip-hop music and the culture even more; to solidify it more; to help justify it more; and again to spread the idea more.
His point is that the trains are the only place he feels where he can express himself and this expression can be seen and appreciated (at least by those who appreciate it). It allows be displaying and talking about, whether positive or negative. There is no such thing as bad press.
As far as Artist vs. Bomber, each have their own intentions for graffiti. The artist finds comfort in it and uses it as a form of self expression. They do not have the intentions of harming public space, where as the Bomber does. The bomber’s intentions is to get their name up in as many places as possible just so that their name is known. The artist wants to be known for name as well as their style, as well as their art. And in discussion of these terms, and in the terms of More Vs. Quality, obviously quality is more important, especially when trying to legitimize a subculture that is automatically outcasted and looked down upon. The artist wants to have a say because they have something to say. The bomber wants recognition for celebrity of name and that is all. In terms of other art movements, the rarer the work, the more monetary and social value it has. Limited editions in all realms of society hold higher value.
When graffiti is removed from the public space, I feel it is no longer graffiti; at least not as legitimate. When this style of work is being taken into the galleries, this is a result of graffiti and the culture. It is a representation in a different setting. I do not feel it is actual graffiti defined by its truest definition. What the gallery does allow is for the visual aesthetic of this culture to become more known and accepted; maybe making the actual culture, out there on the streets, a little more acceptable. But, it only allows for a glimpse. To truly know and understand this culture, one must be of it.
Those whom are in power are still just human beings; as are the graffiti artists. The societal laws are defined by society and society is a product of us. So in this sense, we do have a say in the aesthetic of a city/space. For example, our own homes, a space, can be decorated however we want. It is when public space enters the picture that we run into problems. These kids feel they are of the streets, utilize the streets, and understand the streets; the streets being a public space. Thus, they have the right to interpret the streets for the rest of us. Bureaucratic America does not understand this culture because they are in the tall buildings looking down on the streets. It is the same as any subculture. If you are different, you are going to be feared, mistreated, and questioned.