Thinks happen: Worms

Look at this picture.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babyfishfel/175963884/in/photostream/

At first some graffiti had an odd appeal. There seemed to be some imagination involved. But, now it's beginning to be repetitive and boring. The simple reality of it is beginning to surface: It's destructive vandalism. Your series is an excellent chronicle of this transition. Thanks! Vandalism to me is one of the worst of all crimes. The reason: it has little purpose or result other than destruction.Okay. I'll shut up now. I have probably opened a can of worms.
(Posted as a comment on the picture 20060626.)

babyfishfel says: You make a good point. That's really what's at the crux of the decision to upload a photo or not, for me. I mean, am I showing anything artistic or interesting? Or am I merely chronicaling displays of egotism? I hope it's more than that - that even when lacking any aesthetic redemption that graffiti represents the voices of those who are otherwise unheard.

( The rest is via email)

To: babyfishfel
From: Anyjazz65
Subject: worms
My wife and I spent about an hour of our afternoon exploring some of the various aspects of graffiti. Although we could agree on most points, neither of us could put boundaries on something that involves so many facets of human motivation and behavior. I’m sure there are greater minds at work on this.

We agreed with you that perhaps some of the work could be the chorus of the unheard...but then so much of it says nothing. I have been known to photograph some I thought at the time might be interesting. We pondered your same dilemma that if we show the photographs are we promoting this vandalism or maybe passing along some clandestine message or motif? Are we encouraging
vandalism?

I have one on my Flickr site too:

We decided perhaps that if the graffiti communicates an idea it is not graffiti at all; it is a sign or a poster or a message, but if it defaces private or public property, then it is still just vandalism. And if there is no communication from one mind to another, then the graffiti is the kind that irks me: vandalism that falls somewhere between meaningless and malicious.

And that’s not examining the artistic side of it at all.

I would suppose you probably would not care to have your photo stream clogged up with long discussions full of moot points and personal opinions and rhetoric. So once again I will shut up. Also I have decided to send this note to you directly and suggest that you ignore or even delete my previous comment, that way you can get back to comments on your photography and not rants on society in general.

I always enjoy your photographs. Keep up the good work.

Fred

20060628
From babyfishfel
Re: worms

Thanks, Fred, for the compliment and the comment. I wouldn't mind in the least continuing this "publicly". I say, if we're allowed to comment, then we're allowed to comment on anything the photos bring to mind -- besides, this is more thought provoking than a string of "nice jobs”.

There's a distinction to be made between graffiti art and "tagging". Very little tagging, in my opinion, would qualify as artistic. It's either juvenile or gang-related or both, and there's little or no artistry to it. I still think it's interesting to observe and record, since it's generally temporary. In that sense, I think of myself as an amateur anthropologist.

What I'd call "graffiti art" I like to think of as art in public for the public. It's almost like an uncommissioned mural.

I don't have the same objection than you do to the vandalism aspect of graffiti. In certain locations I would, but for its own sake I don't. Frankly, I think it's refreshing when a bit of humor or color or social consciousness forces itself to be seen. Especially when it's basically harmless and unoffensive in content. At least in my neighborhood, I'm so sick of generic mainstream apathetic upward mobility. So that's my bias.

I wonder what the graffiti-ists themselves would say?

--Felicia

20060628
To: babyfishfel
From: Anyjazz65
Subject: worms

Thanks for your reply, Felicia.

You are right of course; my hang up is vandalism, not graffiti.

And you are correct in your other points too: 1.) Art or tagging? 2.) Harmless or inoffensive, for whom? 3.) Where’s an inoffensive venue for an Uncommissioned Mural? 4.) Who decides? There are so many avenues in the subject that discussion could be endless.

Where art and society are discussed, there is never total agreement. Jan Vermeer and Jackson Pollock both have their advocates and critics. And social comment? Yeah, where are we there? Nobody agrees, it seems.

If you really want to stir up a thoughtful discussion on this I suggest you put the photo in one or a few of the two thousand or so graffiti/street art groups on Flickr and add it to some of the discussion threads or even start a new one. I bet you can get some idea what the graffiti-ists themselves have to say.

There’s even a group named “Graffiti vs. Vandalism” but it doesn’t seem a very active one. Also, if you want, I will add my second comment back into your comment stream below the picture and maybe that will help stir things a bit.
I have read some of the discussions in these groups. Some are quite thought provoking but some are incomprehensible.

I intend to add this discussion so far to a blog page featuring your picture too. Let me know if I can help any other way.

Thanks for a stimulating morning!

Fred