The anthropology of media covers a wide array of subjects and this course has allowed us as students to express our own opinions about these subjects freely and without much critique. This is my time to see what other students have thought about while writing on the same subjects that I have been writing about all semester. I chose to look at the blogs of two of my peers, Riaz Makan and Adrien Lotfipour, and see what sort of ideas they applied to the concept of graffiti in Vancouver. Both students take a similar side when critiquing graffiti, and both discuss how graffiti needs to be looked at as art, not as an act of vandalism.
Riaz Makan writes about the social and education importance of graffiti. He takes a historical approach and discusses how the art of graffiti arose and how it has become popularized, moving from building walls to canvases in art studios (Makan, 2011). I think that he makes some great points for the importance of graffiti, and how it is not simply an act of vandalism, although he admits it sometimes can be, but it is an art form that expresses social issues in a non-violent context (Makan, 2011). He discusses the work of Koon-Hwee Kan, who discusses a common debate relating to graffiti, why adolescents are so attracted to the act (Kan, 2001). He, along with Riaz Makan, talk about how the act of rebellion is so appealing to youth, and it is this reason why so many find it to be an act of vandalism instead of another form of art (Kan, 2001; Makan, 2011). I believe that any discussion about social issues is a great contribution to our education. No topic is ever going to have a consensus, especially in anthropology, but that is what keeps it interesting. I think Riaz Makan has contributed especially well showing both the social and educational implications to naming graffiti as solely a negative practice, we need to rethink how we see this act, and view it in a new, positive, light (Makan, 2011).
Adrien Lotfipour takes a similar stance to looking at graffiti. He focuses on the distinction between graffiti as art and graffiti as vandalism, and uses the theoretical concepts of Marisa Gomez to aid in this discussion (Gomez, 1992; Lotfipour, 2011). Adrien Lotfipour clearly thinks that graffiti should be thought of as art, as you can see in his blob post. He believes that it is a modern day expression of social trends, coming from hip-hop especially (Lotfipour, 2011). He discusses that this graffiti is public art, and the people doing this art want it to be seen and enjoyed, it is not hidden for only certain eyes to see it (Lotfipour, 2011). He discusses how the graffiti that is done with permission is more acceptable than graffiti done without permission, but both still remain to be art, regardless of its legality (Gomez, 1992; Lotfipour, 2011). Adrien Lotfipour shows yet another opinion on acceptance of graffiti, I think it is becoming more socially acceptable as time passes, as the younger generation sees what graffiti is about and appreciate it as more than an act of vandalism. This blog entry contributes to anthropology as it creates a setting for a broader and more open discussion of graffiti and its social implications.
This debate is something that is continuous in several of the social sciences. I do not believe that there will ever be a general consensus as to whether graffiti is good or bad. We do know though, that according to these two students, that graffiti should, in most circumstances, be considered as art; graffiti needs to be looked at in a more positive light, taking it away from the gang associations and moved into a more educational framework, to teach us about the social issues and concerns that are occurring in our cities today.
