(no subject)
Mayor Koch echoed this sentiment, as he argued that all of the petty crimes considered to be ‘quality-of-life’ offenses are interconnected, as they are “all in the same area of destroying our lifestyle and making it difficult to enjoy life.” [8]
The mass media were a main source for the majority of New Yorkers in building an understanding of their city; as such, the media’s stance on a topic unknown to many citizens generally became the ‘norm,’ as was the case with graffiti. Although the media were initially the ones who called attention to the writing on subways, most of the media’s representations of graffiti, after Mayor Lindsay’s public denouncement, coincided with the city’s representation of graffiti as a signifier for urban decay. [9] Thus, the community outside of graffiti writers began to equate graffiti with the other problems of the city.
The intentions of the mass media in writing graffiti in such a way were not simply to frame writers as vandals; the city’s construction of graffiti as ‘against the norm’ was additionally meant to push other citizens to mobilize against urban decay, especially that manifest in the form of graffiti. Austin notes the emergence of (and media focus on) anti-graffiti citizens’ groups in the early 1970s, [10] which acted to police the subways and repaint trains and walls. These groups are representative of a larger occurrence, however- a “private/public partnership” [11] made between the city and its compliant population. As Austin says in relation to this collaboration, the population of New York City was meant to “rally around civic leaders and revitalize the city’s order through unpaid volunteer work motivated by righteous anger” spawned by graffiti artists. [12]
The media coverage of graffiti, and the subsequent outrage of the average citizen, led to the physical actions taken by the city to alleviate what was seen as ‘the graffiti problem.’ The political regimes of New York City acted against subway writing in three main “wars on graffiti.” [13] These divisions of the city’s actions arguably broke down subway graffiti slowly. As LEE stated, “It wasn’t so much that the city did a single crackdown. It came in increments, from the time of Lindsay through Beame to Koch.” [14]
The first “war” was begun by Mayor Lindsay, who put together an anti-graffiti task force, connecting major officials and organizations related to the problem. This led to a project in 1973 to rapidly repaint all subway trains, which cost over ten million of the tax payers’ dollars. [15] The second ‘war on graffiti’ was undertaken in the late 1970s (during Beame’s mayoral term), and included a new “vandal squad” enforcement unit within the Transit Police Department and a new technology with which to clean graffiti off of the trains (a chemical solvent bath through which trains were run, referred to by writers as ‘the buff’). [16] These new strategies against graffiti coincided with a budget crisis in the city, which arguably led to their lack of results.
The third and final ‘war’ was undertaken by Mayor Koch, and once again began with a repainting of all of the subway trains, this time, however, with new paint-resistant polyurethane. [17] The Clean Car Program was also undertaken, in 1984, which was arguably the most successful strategy acted out by the city, and led to 80 percent of subway cars being “graffiti-free” by 1988. [18] The Clean Car Program removed any graffiti on subway trains within two hours, as a means of removing the fame of having one’s graffiti visible to the city. [19] This final action decisively removed almost all graffiti from the subway, and the city declared their victory by 1989. [20]
It must be noted that this brief explanation of the actions taken against graffiti is meant to be an overview- a small set of examples I use to illuminate just how the city responded to subway graffiti. Also, by relating each ‘war on graffiti’ to the mayor of New York City at the time, I intend only to use this as a means of denoting the entire political regime active at the time (including leaders of the Metropolitan Transit Authority, the New York Police Department, etc). The actions of the city are much more complicated than can be discussed in this study, and thus are used in this case as a means of illustrating the cultural construction of the city. Finally, I intend for these actions to be viewed as on an aspect of the dialogue which occurred between graffiti and the city at large.
[1] Noble, 14.
[2] Michael, 136.
[3] Castleman, 144.
[4] CHINO quoted by Paul 107, 106.
[5] Mailer, 4.
[6] Koch, quoted in the film, “Style Wars.” ***When did Lindsay first use this?*****
[7] Weisel, 3.
[8] Mayor Koch, quoted in “Style Wars.”
[9] Austin goes so far as to claim that graffiti was employed by the media as a scapegoat for larger social issues. In discussing articles in the New York Times, he states: “It is useful to keep in mind that this analysis (which posits the appearance of the urban environment as a primary cause for the cynicism, sadness, and hopelessness) is geographically located within a city …where an average of thirty-three buildings a day burned in the Bronx…where essential services had been cut to the bone; where maintenance of the mass transit system had been dangerously deferred for several years; where the federal government withheld financial assistance until the city was on the brink of bankruptcy…” (143)
[10] Austin, 88.
[11] Austin, 149.
[12] Ibid.
[13] This term was first employed by City Counsel president Sanford D. Garelik in 1972, and echoed in a New York Times article titled “Garelik Calls for War on Graffiti. Noted in Austin, p.83.
[14] LEE, quoted by Ehrlich, et al.
[15] Austin, 107.
[16] Austin, 128. See figure 1 for an example of ‘buffing’ a train.
[17] Austin, 207.
[18] Austin, 222.
[19] “Tackling Graffiti”, p.1.
[20] Ibid.
A Short Outline of Graffiti
The nature of graffiti as a mass form of communication is unique, as its content is not focused in the linguistic aspect; rather, the content of the medium is created through the culmination of various aspects related to style and placement. This, arguably, is how graffiti achieve their universality, and also how New York City was able to determine the population’s response through writing its own content of graffiti- as most viewers with no prior knowledge of graffiti were unable to access the painted messages.
The various types of graffiti, which, in the case of my study, are ‘tags,’ ‘throw-ups,’ and ‘pieces,’ are mainly differentiated from one another in their varying focuses on these two aspects of the medium. Whereas ‘tags’ and ‘throw-ups’ [1] are mainly focused placement and visibility (what most writers refer to as ‘getting up’ [2]), ‘pieces’ [3] are focused on style and artistic prestige.
Regardless of the type of graffiti, and the focus of that type, there are certain constants within graffiti as a form of mass communication. As Stewart puts it:
graffiti points to the paradox of a public space which belongs to no one, and to the paradoxes of privacy and face, presentation and display, by which surface, space, and the frontal view of gestures of respectability and respect toward a generalized order for its own sake. [4]
Graffiti act against the city as a ‘place,’ and, rather, reassert the voice of the individual- that which is invisible in the giant city. They take back the term ‘public,’ claiming ‘public’ space to be, at least partially, theirs.
[1] A ‘tag’ is a work of graffiti done in one color, either with spray paint or marker. It is the most simplified version of the writer’s tag name. The ‘throw-up’ is slightly more complicated, as it involves first an outline, then a ‘fill’ with the same color, and finally another outline in contrasting color. See figures 2 and 3 for examples.
[2] ‘Getting up’ is used by writers to mean getting their signatures seen in a lot of places. Castleman uses this term in the title of his book, probably due to the importance that was placed on ‘getting up’ within the graffiti community.
[3] ‘Piece’ is a term used by graffiti writers- it is short for ‘masterpieces.’ ‘Pieces’ are more complicated than both ‘tags’ and ‘throw-ups’, as they often include a background and characters. The palette is often more varied than that of thow-ups, and the letters of the tag name are often highly stylized. See figure 4 for an example.
[4] Stewart, 175.
To be continued...