Fossil Fish Stencil

Clanger Street Art In Canterbury

Alien Hazard On Cardboard

Hoodie Fresco Fragment

Swearing Tree Sign at Accident Blackspot

Stencil Smurf Bomb Cut

Fish

Post Graffiti: Unauthorised Art and Advertisement, From Vandalism to “Brandalism”

In this essay I discuss how and why artists use graffiti. I try to compare and link graffiti art with mainstream advertisement by showing how the phenomenon of modern day ‘graffiti-culture’ is a response to the oversaturation and sophistication of advertisement companies which emerged during the post war years. I discuss how advertisers are now mimicking and employing graffiti artists in an attempt to help them sell their products. I also look at how authorities are responding to these unconventional marketing practices.    

Having personally witnessed and been involved with the sub-culture of ‘raving’ and the ‘rave scene’ that grew  during the early 1990s, I have come into contact with many different views and concepts that question how our society is organised, its sustainability and its authoritarian responses employed to control its members. I have personally used stencils to paint on private and public surfaces such as walls and street furniture, without prior consent or permission from the relevant bodies. From these experiences and interests I have become concerned about living in a society that is fuelled by consumption. I wish to question the power of global brand products and the multinational corporations that own them, as well as the ecological effects that mass-consumerism have on the environment.

In my opinion, one of the most capitalist and media saturated cities in the world is New York. Children living in such places are continually bombarded with advertisements. Brand recognition and loyalty to particular brands are frequently formed at a very young age. The ‘nag factor’ to parents from children to buy certain products is taken very seriously by advertisement agencies, who often enlist the expertise of child behaviourists and psychologists to find new approaches in subliminal propaganda techniques in order to sell their client’s products. I feel that it is no coincidence that New York is also renowned for being one of the most graffitied cities in the world and considered to be where modern day graffiti art started, or at least the first place to become famous for graffiti through media coverage, books and the seminal 1983 documentary film “Style Wars”. In large densely populated places such as this, advertisements fight for limited prime space to communicate their messages. It is hard for individual companies to be heard due to the abundance of competition, so they need to recruit ever more sophisticated means and use new approaches to reach an already savvy consumer. In the same way as the advertisers, the graffiti artist finds it hard to be noticed, due to the abundance of graffiti. They often feel that they need to adopt new and innovative approaches if they want their work to be seen. One of the ways this can be achieved is by sheer volume and “getting up” (Ferrell, 2001) as much as possible. For the graffiti artist wishing to gain notoriety he can try and achieve “all-city” (Style Wars, 1983) status where his mark or “tag” can be seen in all districts of a city. The increase in size of the tag and positioning are important factors if one is to be noticed, as well as the aesthetical qualities of the design. These factors are obviously the concerns of the advertisement companies as well as the graffiti artist, although the latter is not selling a product. They do however, both want to stand out from the competition, be heard and they both seek an identity. I personally find it interesting when the two start to merge and imitate each other to a point where the consumer finds it hard to decipher the message, or becomes frustrated at being unable to decode what product it is they are being sold. The way the graffiti artist can do this is by creating their own highly recognisable brand logo, which is what Shepard Fairey did with his OBEY stickers. Another response from artists has been to ‘hijack’ advertisement boards by altering or replacing parts of the original posters with their own images. Groups such as The Billboard Liberation Front have been hijacking large advertisement spaces on buildings and roadsides for many years, usually changing the image from its official function of advertising a commodity to an anti-capitalist message done in a convincingly professional yet amusing way. Companies wishing to appear “hip” or “cool” in an attempt to reach their target market are now looking to graffiti and hip hop culture, recruiting graffiti artists as graphic designers and in some cases employing them to install adverts in unconventional ways and places. The following story is an extreme example of when this can have a negative impact on a large company which uses unorthodox advertisement policies.

On the 31^st January 2007 in Boston, the capital city of Massachusetts, a rail commuter noticed a suspicious electronic device mounted on the wall of a train station. The concerned man notified the police who, in turn called out the Boston bomb squad department to inspect the small electronic device. With great concern that they were dealing with an improvised explosive device of some kind, they decided to destroy the object with a controlled explosion. This required the shut down of a large part of the city, including major roads, bridges and the near-by river, as well as the city’s train and subway systems. Soon after this, other similar devices were discovered all over the city. This inevitably caused great concern and coverage of the unfolding story was captured by various media networks, many of whom were filming live. Fuelled by the sensational coverage of the event portrayed by the TV and radio channels, there was widespread panic among the general public. This “called to mind Orson Welles’s CBS radio broadcast in 1938 of “War of the Worlds,” which panicked calls to the police and the military” (www.washingtonpost.com). The devices turned out to be a ‘guerrilla marketing’ campaign, so called because of the unconventional and non-mainstream marketing strategies used to get maximum results with minimum cost. The company responsible was Turner Broadcasting System PLC, the parent company of the Cartoon Network channel, which paid two artists to erect the objects over a period of three weeks in many locations around the U.S, including ten major cities. The simple battery powered LED placards where designed to resemble a cartoon character from a TV show aimed at the college student market. Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davies response was “unconscionable... That such a marketing campaign was executed in a post 9/11 era” (www.cnn.com) and Martha Coakley the Massachusetts Attorney General on commenting on the LED cartoon placards, “they had a very sinister appearance with batteries and wires”, and commenting on the two million dollar fine incurred by Turner Broadcasting for placing the devices in her district “I hope the money will go towards enabling  our communities to enhance homeland security, preparedness and emergency response” (www.cnn.com). Unfortunately I don’t think these responses will help the American security agencies see the difference between an art instillation and a severe threat to the general public, instead I believe it will just fuel more fear of an imminent attack on the American way of life and in turn call for more legislation by politicians to enact greater control over peoples freedom. Some of the inhabitants of Boston did see the funny side of the events that took place, and in the months following the bomb scare, stickers began appearing around the city on objects such as parking meters and public telephones, with slogans declaring “DONT PANIC this is NOT a bomb”.

Other Guerrilla marketing approaches which avoid incurring criminal charges or huge fines for vandalism or hoax terrorist attacks, have started to use bio-degradable materials or “Reverse Graffiti”. Reverse graffiti is a process where dirt and grime are removed from a surface to produce a visible image and often employs laser cut metal stencils and high powered pressure washers to remove areas of dirt caused by car and industry pollution found in inner city areas. A simple version of reverse graffiti can sometimes be seen written on the back of road vehicles, in the form of messages such as “clean me” or “this van use to be white” etc. Many large multi-national companies such as Microsoft and Nike, in an attempt to utilise new approaches and possibilities for their advertisement campaigns have used reverse graffiti. These approaches are not popular with all, particularly local councils who dislike this style of advertisement and label it as vandalism, perhaps because they consider they are missing out on gaining venues from the advertisers. It may also be because it highlights how dirty these areas really are. In Leeds 2004, when local artist Paul Curtis was caught in the act of “clean Tagging” advertisements for Smirnoff, he was arrested under the Anti-social behaviour act. A spokesperson from Leeds City Council said;

“Leeds residents want to live in clean and attractive neighbourhoods, and expect their streets to be free of graffiti and illegal advertising. We also view this kind of rogue advertising as environmental damage and will take strong action against any advertisers carrying out such campaigns without relevant permission” (www.habitat.com)

Another clash between this form of graffiti and a local authority was in Brazil’s San Paolo area. A local artist of that area, Alexandre Orion created a large mural inside one of the transport tunnels depicting a series of skulls to remind the road users of the impact that traffic emissions have on the planet. The local council’s response was to clean off the mural, but they only cleaned the side of the tunnel where the mural was, so Orion went back and created another mural on the other side and traffic direction of the tunnel. As a result the council ordered the cleaning of all the transport system tunnels throughout city.

There are numerous reasons why people commit vandalism in the form of graffiti on private and public property. It is perceived by some as a threat and an indication of a declining society. For many, it suggests specifically that the young people within the society are out of control, and they feel that graffiti should be eradicated as quickly as it emerges. Increasingly tough laws and security measures such as CCTV, anti-climb painted walls and graffiti removal squads are used at great cost, in order to deter people from committing the act of graffiti vandalism. So why do some people still persist in continuing to graffiti, and why are so many of our urban spaces covered in it? Part of the reason I believe is because of advertising and mass-consumerism, where an individual is judged and identified through the commodities that they own. The line between what they need, for example food, and what they want becomes blurred. Town planners know that one of the most popular leisure activities is shopping, and large parts of once public town and city centres are being handed over to private companies such as the ownership of WhiteFriars, in Canterbury to Land Securities Group PLC. These places appear to be public but are not and any activity apart from consuming or working are not accepted. For a non-affluent person living in such a society it is often difficult and frustrating as they are still affected by the advertisements around them, but do not have the means to afford the life style. This can make them feel excluded and in some cases has even forced people into debt or crime. Even when consumption desires are met, they are often short-lived leaving a hollow feeling inside and life becomes mundane and boring.

For a younger generation the feelings of exclusion and frustration are intensified, from coming into daily contact with MTV style ‘gangster’ rap videos, which fantasies power and the “Bling” factor, as well as the glorification of crime through digital crime environments such as “shoot-em-up” games like “Grand Theft Auto”. I believe the media’s obsession with demonising the young has allowed ever greater control by the authorities to take people’s liberties away, as well as producing greater fear and exclusion of the young. With these feelings of exclusion, frustration and boredom could explain the rise of ‘risk’ hobbies, by which I mean activities that are deemed  potentially dangerous, such as rock climbing, bungee jumping or inner-city pursuits such as binge drinking, raving and crime. These risk activities are away for people to feel in control of their own lives and it is the same for the graffiti artist who commits vandalism. We all feel an urge to leave a mark on our environment in our own individual way but for the graffiti artist, I see it as about them wanting to take control of their lives.

In this essay I have aimed to show the comparisons between corporate advertisement and graffiti (art) vandalism and to explain why I think modern graffiti is influenced by consumerism. Graffiti seems to be going full circle with advertisers trying to emanate graffiti, and graffiti artists becoming wealthy multi-national brands in their own right. For some purest graffiti artists and followers, this is too much and I believe that these circumstances are just a case of people selling out to the corporate giants. Graffiti is considered an activity as opposed to a style, which, thanks to the sharing of information though the web, new communities and ideas are being formed and new and exciting technologies and approaches for urban communication both for the vandal and large companies are being invented.

Bibliography

Austin, J (2001) Taking the Train; How Graffiti Art Became an Urban Crisis in New York, New York: Columbria University Press

Bansky (2005) Wall and Piece, London: Random House

Ferrell,J (1996) Crimes of Style: Urban Graffiti and the Politics of Criminality, Boston: Northeastern University Press

Ferrell, J (2001) Tearing Down the Streets, Adventures in Urban Anarchy, New York: Palgrave

Fuller, O’Brien and Hope (2003) Exploring solutions to Graffiti in Newcastle-upon-Tyne : Northumbria University

Hannigan, J (1998) Fantasy City : Pleasure and Profit in the Postmodern Metropolis, London: Routledge

Hayward, J (2004) City Limits: Crime, Consumer Culture and the Urban Experience, London: The Glass House Press

Macdonald, N  (2001) The Graffiti Subculture: Youth, Masculinity and Identity in London and New York, Basingstoke: palgrave

Mai, M (2004) Writing-Urban Calligraphy and Beyond, Berlin: Die Gestalten Verlag

Presdee, M (2000) Cultural Criminology and the Carnival of Crime, London: Routledge

Schor, J (1992) The Over-Worked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure, New York: HarperCollins

Stewart, J (1989) Subway graffiti: an aesthetic study of graffit on the subway system of New York City, 1970-1978, New York University

Walsh, M (1996) Graffito, Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books

Witten, A (2001) Dondi White Style Master General: The Life of Graffiti Artist Dondi White, New York: Regan Books