(Please note: I highly recommend watching "Style Wars" a few more times. The film is available online from Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5065949310221269915&q=style+wars&hl=en)
Please answer the following questions in complete sentences and THOROUGHLY. I have categorized the questions appropriately; keep in mind that we are looking at hip hop/graffiti art specifically, but also in relation to other subcultures. So, you will have to answer these questions again regarding other subcultures.
Graffiti as Subculture
1. what are some of the "signs" of this subculture? (Think of your own "my culture" assignment that you did. NOTHING is exempt from analysis...dress, speech, mannerisms, etc., but more importantly the characteristics and specific language around graffiti (check the glossery on the "art crimes" website: www.graffiti.org).
2. How do the aesthetics of graffiti specifically coincide with other elements of hip hop?
3. Is graffiti subversive? How? What might one say who does not think graffiti is subversive? What would be their argument?
Graffiti as Illegal
1. Does the American right to private property supercede all justifications for graffiti on trains?
2. If doing graffiti is limited only to murals and "legal" spaces, what is lost to "graffiti" as a subculture?
Graffiti as Art
1. What is controversial/problematic about graffiti art being displayed in art galleries? What are the benefits?
2. What are the aesthetic values of graffiti?
The Case of Cap
1. What is the threat that Cap poses to the graffiti subculture? How is this threat different from that of the "authorities"?
2. If Cap went all city with his throw ups, would he be king? Explain.
Graffiti as Writing
1. What are the similarities between graffiti and, say, poetry? (It may be useful to look up "concrete poetry," or "visual poetry" on Wikipedia, or even "dada poets" to satisfactorily answer this question.)
2. Does graffiti deserve to be treated as yet another aspect of creative expression through writing, or should it be "marginalized" by the "canon of Western culture"?
Friday, February 9, 2007
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Thoughts on Wednesday's Class (2.7.07)
There are two "definitions" of culture which are worthwhile to juxtapose:
1) the cultivating or development (of the mind, faculties, manners), improvement or refinement by education and training; the condition of being trained or refined; the intellectual side of civilization; the prosecution or special attention or study of any subject or pursuit. (Oxford English Dictionary)
Using the first definition, one can look at different social phenomena in qualitative terms, and ask whether or not that phenomena can "count" as culture. "Culture" in this sense is a term used to describe sophisticated ways of living (well groomed, well mannered, appreciated thee "finer things of life").
2) "a particular way of life which expresses certain meanings and values not only in art and learning, but also in institutions and ordinary behaviour. The analysis of culture, from such a definition, is the clarification of the meanings and values implicit and explicit in a particular way of life, a particular culture . . ." (Hebdige 6).
In this class, we are using this second definition. That is to say, we are recognizing culture as VARIOUS ways of living among VARIOUS social groups. Effectively, then, there is a youth culture, a culture of the rich, a culture of the poor, a culture of living in Portland, etc. "Culture," in this sense, refers to a fluid social phenomenon wherein "social and cultural developments as a whole can be better understood" (Hebdige 7).
1) the cultivating or development (of the mind, faculties, manners), improvement or refinement by education and training; the condition of being trained or refined; the intellectual side of civilization; the prosecution or special attention or study of any subject or pursuit. (Oxford English Dictionary)
Using the first definition, one can look at different social phenomena in qualitative terms, and ask whether or not that phenomena can "count" as culture. "Culture" in this sense is a term used to describe sophisticated ways of living (well groomed, well mannered, appreciated thee "finer things of life").
2) "a particular way of life which expresses certain meanings and values not only in art and learning, but also in institutions and ordinary behaviour. The analysis of culture, from such a definition, is the clarification of the meanings and values implicit and explicit in a particular way of life, a particular culture . . ." (Hebdige 6).
In this class, we are using this second definition. That is to say, we are recognizing culture as VARIOUS ways of living among VARIOUS social groups. Effectively, then, there is a youth culture, a culture of the rich, a culture of the poor, a culture of living in Portland, etc. "Culture," in this sense, refers to a fluid social phenomenon wherein "social and cultural developments as a whole can be better understood" (Hebdige 7).
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Thoughts on Monday's class (2.6.07)
"Style Wars" should be required viewing for anyone interested in American culture/subculture. That film deals with so many important issues that I barely know where to begin when I think/talk about it. Let me try to break it down a bit:
Graffiti: It's difficult for me to even begin. On the one hand, it's so obviously illegal and contrary to one of the most fundamental American rights--private property (and those of you in Government learned about that the other day, during the lecture on John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government). & yet, there is another, so incredibly American element to it. There is a subversive element to it, an artistic element, a competitive element, and all of these can (and have been) placed within the context of art history, as well as the history of the written word.
In addition, it's hard not to draw a parallel between the cryptic and hermetic aspects of graffiti with the work songs sung by second-generation slaves in America. But I'll save that thought for another day...
The Case of Cap:
It is important to understand that the reason why Cap is so controversial is because he fully understands the codes behind the graffiti subculture, and yet seems to be indifferent to them. (Just as a student noted in class, CAP IS PART OF THE GRAFFITI SUBCULTURE). He is thumbing his nose at the more refined understandings that the other graffiti artists have acquired (i.e. don't paint over someone else's "burner", especially with a crappy throw up). Cap represents a dissenting voice from within...it's as if he's indifferent to the already "subversive" aspect of graffiti that the other writers represent. He's just "doing his own thing" (as people in his position often say). Still, for our purposes as "critics" of this subculture, I do think it's important to note that he makes an interesting distinction between a graffiti "artist" and a graffiti "bomber." For cap (as well as other bombers) it's quantity, not quality. Of course, some may see this as a lack of artistic ability...
Graffiti: It's difficult for me to even begin. On the one hand, it's so obviously illegal and contrary to one of the most fundamental American rights--private property (and those of you in Government learned about that the other day, during the lecture on John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government). & yet, there is another, so incredibly American element to it. There is a subversive element to it, an artistic element, a competitive element, and all of these can (and have been) placed within the context of art history, as well as the history of the written word.
In addition, it's hard not to draw a parallel between the cryptic and hermetic aspects of graffiti with the work songs sung by second-generation slaves in America. But I'll save that thought for another day...
The Case of Cap:
It is important to understand that the reason why Cap is so controversial is because he fully understands the codes behind the graffiti subculture, and yet seems to be indifferent to them. (Just as a student noted in class, CAP IS PART OF THE GRAFFITI SUBCULTURE). He is thumbing his nose at the more refined understandings that the other graffiti artists have acquired (i.e. don't paint over someone else's "burner", especially with a crappy throw up). Cap represents a dissenting voice from within...it's as if he's indifferent to the already "subversive" aspect of graffiti that the other writers represent. He's just "doing his own thing" (as people in his position often say). Still, for our purposes as "critics" of this subculture, I do think it's important to note that he makes an interesting distinction between a graffiti "artist" and a graffiti "bomber." For cap (as well as other bombers) it's quantity, not quality. Of course, some may see this as a lack of artistic ability...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
