September 20, 2015 - 15:04
"Graffiti artists don't consider themselves artists." Wait, what? Under this logic wouldn't the term "graffiti artist" be an oxymoron? Already this tour seems strange, I can sense conflict before we've even pulled away from the museum. "They just want recognition." Again, what? Isn't that what all artists strive for anyways? I missed the part where recognition was a bad thing. Upon looking at permission walls, "now graffiti artists can use their talent in a productive way." What are you talking about? Since when is art supposed to be productive? What even makes art productive? As we drive past one of the first murals in the area, painted by members of the community, "early muralists were pretty primitive." Okay, you did not just go the "primitive" route. I don't think that I could come up with a better example of coded language than that.
Aware of the bad taste our very friendly tour guides' language put in my mouth, I wondered how much of this I could directly contribute to them and what I had to assume were the ideals of the Philadelphia Mural Arts Organization. The whole project was in reaction to the graffiti in the city, so it was essentially founded off of anti-graffiti sentiments. On a side note, it makes me wonder what the graffiti in the city looked like, or what it promoted, or the costs of it... Because what is brought to mind are the cities like Montreal and the Chilean city that Rosa mentioned, both of which are visually defined by the graffiti art that covers the walls of those towns.
The anti-graffiti sentiments I heard yesterday disturbed me; they felt like acts of silencing local artists by deligitimizing their work in the community. Just because their art does not fit a mold that a museum deems as real or "productive," does not make that art any less valuable, beautiful, or impactful. Only moments before one of our tour guide's pointed critiques of graffiti, we drove past a locally made mural (whose techincal ability did not match up to that of the approved Murals and which was surrounded by vibrant graffiti-like script that I knew some people wouldn't approve of) was a spray painted image of two men with the words "In Loving Memory" printed above them. Although I don't know the backstory to this art, it seemed to me that this was more relevant to the immediate community than the following mural of mosiac tiles.
And this is not to say that all graffiti is welcomed by the community, but do they not realize that not everybody can become a renowned artist to get their ideas a stamp of approval by the Mural Arts Organization? These questions that arose for me during our trip made me think about what makes art legitimate; and that usually is some sort of stamp of approval from an institution. But whose institution? Who gets to decide what is art and what is inappropriate? When does someone's art become worthy of public recognition? and when should it be "shamed," to take the words from our guide's mouth? It seems highly related in so many facets to what we discuss in class -- at what point does another person's voice become worth listening to? Who needs to put their stamp of approval on another's idea in order for it to be legitimate?