Final Project

 

So sorry this is a little blurry! If you want to see a less blurry version email me (ns116017@ohio.edu)! Thank y'all :) 

Thoughts on "Bomb It!"

Since I could not be there for our discussion on Thursday, I will make my last blog post here the sharing of my thoughts on the film. There was very little in this film with which I agreed. At times, I had true sympathy for some of the artists, and I could agree with them on some issues. I'll start with what I liked about the film.

    The concept of "there are no New Yorkers in New York anymore" got to me. I have always hated the idea of living in New York, but I was never really sure why. Some of my favorite books, including A Tree Grows in Brooklyn and The Janitor's Girl take place in New York in the 1910s and 1950s respectfully, and they paint the picture of a charming city (yes, I know Brooklyn isn't New York). Yet, whenever I think of living there, it sounds like an awful idea, even though I wouldn't mind a similar city such as Boston or Philadelphia. I understand now that that's it, that New York doesn't even seem like a city as much as a touristy financial capital. I'll give the film that. Moving on, Sixe from Barcelona said something like "I belong first to Barcelona, then to the world." I have genuine admiration for that kind of loyalty to one's hometown. Also, the old woman who liked it for beautification purposes, I have no argument there; if she allows it, then there's nothing to complain about. I thought the Parisien made tasteful art, and the people in Capetown seem to have a worthy cause. 

    The men in Sao Paulo seemed hard to challenge. The one... Wag Cacao, I think? He pointed out that much of what's legal is far uglier than anything he and his crew do. I appreciated the "Buddha is watching" bit from Tokyo, and I liked Belx2 (I think that was her name). In LA, I agreed emphatically with Revok's critique of the dominance of the automobile (because of course I did). The last positive thing I have written down came from the guy with the bridge piercing, saying that if you "sell out," he'll still respect you, but as an entrepreneur, not a graffiti artist. I think that's a very reasonable way of viewing things.

    Other than that, I found most of the artists to be very unreasonable in their thinking. They decry the art form's becoming acceptable and commercialized, and yet they complain about being persecuted? That man in Germany, all I heard out of him was "I hate my country because it sucks"; I find myself less than inspired by such a cause. The discussion with the old man in Barcelona is a good example of what the authorities in New York and Germany were saying, that breaking a window leads to general window breaking. Those Barceloneses seemed to be totally oblivious to the fact that illegal graffiti, no matter how pretty it may be, is what inspired those teenagers to vandalize the man's door. That woman in LA, TKO, I literally laughed out loud when she complained about someone tagging (what I believe was) her house. Most of the LA scene in general annoyed me; I think the non-graffitizing citizens have every right to be upset. Tagging an overpass or a freeway noise wall is one thing, but private property and road signs is another matter.

    Until now, I've skipped Pike and Nug--from the Low Countries, I think? Mostly Nug. I laugh at the notion of him fancying himself an artist. He's not, at least he's not shown to be in the clip of him "at work" in the studio (the subway). He looks like he's literally drunk and/or high, working with all the skill and precision of a toddler armed with crayons on the wall of his house. I don't understand how he isn't ashamed of himself, really. What he makes is trash, not art. I suppose it's implied that Pike then comes along and works on Nug's "template", although if that's the case they should have shown as much. In any case, Nug could be replaced by an exceptionally tall sixth grader.

    The last thing I'll say about the movie: that guy from LA with the bridge piercing. Another thing he mentioned was a brief spiel against capitalism. I wonder if he supposes he could fair better in the USSR or the PRC.

    I'm not against street art, I'm really not. Well-made and tasteful paintings on otherwise blank slates are at least tolerable in my mind. Emblazoning your own name in giant, caricatured letters doesn't just seem wrong; it seems like an allegory for narcissism. I really have no idea why some of these people act as if they have a noble cause. And although "well-made" and "tasteful" are subjective terms, there can be some consensus. If you disagree, go up to the roof of the parking garage. Tell me how much profanity, hate speech and how many manhoods you can count, and then tell me if you still believe that nothing can be called "tasteless".

For further reading/viewing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS18bNaaRt4

This is a nine-minute video from the infographics show explaining the "Broken Window Theory."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/

This is the original 1982 article, "Broken Windows" by Kelling and Wilson from the Atlantic.

https://alice.library.ohio.edu/record=b1766722~S7

This is Alden Library's copy of The Janitor's Girl by Frieda Friedman. It's a charming young adult book in its own right, but it's also a realistic, contemporary depiction of Manhattan neighborhood life in the 1950s. I'm just mentioning it because of that bit about the Disneyfication of Manhattan.

Contesting resistance: Reproducing discriminatory systems through the transgression of urban art

 

I know that many of you will not probably be able to read this post. However, after watching Bomb it! I really wanted to share this with you. I will keep it brief. I could not stop thinking about graffiti I have seen many times, so I asked my sister to send me these pictures. They were taken in Quito, Ecuador, just a few blocks away from my house. This graffiti was painted about two years ago in front of the National Assembly (The Ecuadorian Congress). The graffiti has a message that reads El amor no tiene género (Love has no gender), and it shows a heterosexual couple -at the center- and two homosexual couples kissing.  The graffiti painting has been deteriorating over time. However, if you look closely, you will clearly note that there are some transgressions and erasures made to specific parts of the graffiti. The mouths, the kiss of homosexual couples were scratched, and more and more, they have been erased. Also, the two women that are kissing have a painting scratch on them as well.

As we saw in Bomb it! urban art, and more specifically, graffiti, have been a powerful tool of resistance and expression for those marginalized. In that context, I think that these images are very thought-provoking and open a space for debate and reflection. On the one hand, I believe that it is worth considering how these transgressions reflect the stance of some parts of the society regarding issues like gender equality, LGBTQ+ groups, and freedom of expression. It is important to consider that Ecuador is still a very traditional and conservative society when it comes to social issues and equality. Although Ecuador is a secular country, most people are Catholic, and it is important to understand that most social dynamics related to gender and race are also deeply related to the legacies of colonialism that shape social structures and race/gender expectations. However, this makes me think about what the effect of transgressing graffiti would be like this in, say, the walls near Baker Center, that serve as a place for expression through graffiti.

On the other hand, I think that there are two specific elements that make these transgressions more impactful. One is the fact that the kiss, the mouth, is the element that is transgressed. It is not the entire couple, but only the kiss, the expression of affect, of placer, that contests gender expectations and that expresses the right for individuals to choose who they love. This, for me, is a very symbolic way of sustaining the repression of human affects and emotions like placer, love, and of course, voice. A famous capoeira Mestre -Mestre Pastinha- once said: “Capoeira e tudo o que a boca come (Capoeira is everything that the mouth eats). This phrase makes me think that the mouth is an element of interaction with our senses and other things that create connections for us. A kiss, food, our voices. Finally, it is worth considering also how the couple of two women has a scratch, how, it might seem, it is an effort to also send a message about another deep and worrying problem in Latin American societies, and in the world in general, which is violence against women. Only in 2021, until November 25, 172 women were killed in Ecuador as a product of femicide.

These are some thoughts that I wanted to share through this space. Graffiti can certainly be a way to express and contest current social norms, and, at the same time, it is worth thinking bout how other elements and members of the society also struggle to sustain oppressive systems. The questions, maybe, should be about why is it that these systems are sustained? Why is equality, in all its forms, so difficult to achieve? The use and transgression of this graffiti in particular visibilizes those contesting positions in society.

Happy end of the semester, everyone!

Acceptable Public Art vs. Unacceptable – Geographies of Resistance

 After really enjoying “Bomb It!” during class, I’ve decided to write a little bit on acceptable vs. unacceptable public art.

What we consider and promote as public art is organized and carefully orchestrated by those who hold power in cities. Public art is normally commissioned and created in a designated city space. In both social geography and urban (re)development, the value of public art is increasingly recognized. The same is not true for street art in general (or we wouldn’t have pieces of media like Bomb It!). The value of graffiti as being art has long been speculated. Of course, this is challenged. Merriam Webster defines art as being, “something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings”. Of course, this definition is not static – beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but definitions of beauty are euro-centric, imperialistic, racist, etc. They’re socially produced and reproduced. Art is up to the viewer’s interpretation, which is why we can see a discernible lack of acceptance of street art due to dominant narratives. This is not only evident in commonly accepted definitions of art, but also graffiti being heavily influenced by the hip-hop movement – a counterculture that is marked by a lack of conformity. This isn’t to say that graffiti doesn’t foster its own conformity as a culture. Graffiti resists contemporary concepts of art and epistemologies both mold those definitions and their antonyms. Despite being both public and art, graffiti is widely considered street art instead of public art. This art has more potential to represent marginalized folks than commodified, commissioned, and designated public art.

Much like the definition of art, cities are constantly being made and re-made around the world. This is inherent both physically and socially. To truly understand the powers at play behind the construction of the urban environment it’s essential that we look at manifestations of urban culture – both conformist and non-conformist.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/03/living/ireport-street-art-public-art/index.html

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

 

Hobo Day at Athens High School

 

In case the caption is too fuzzy to read, I'll repeat it: "This intriguing photograph was taken on April 22, 1927, a day for letting one's hair down and forgetting the rules. Dressed in some truly outlandish costumes, students at Athens High School on West State Street celebrate Hobo Day, a tradition that has gone by the wayside. Straw, 2007.

NOTE: This post should not count as a post in its own right; it is mostly a comment to Noelle. The only reason I have made it a post is that I could not discern how to add a photograph to a comment.

I think that it is interesting that dressing as a hobo used to be common practice in a less politically correct time period. I think this photograph reflects the nature of humans in a way that may explain (if not excuse) a person dressing up as a homeless person for Halloween. 

    It is important to understand that many of these kids would have grown up in comparatively hard times. True, this predates the depression, but that does not negate the fact that it is the 1920s. Basic utilities such as running water, electricity and gas were still rare or brand new in 1927; "In 1937, only ten percent of Ohioans living in rural south-central Ohio had electricity in their homes," (Ohio History Connection). Certainly most of these kids would have lived in conditions far worse than most kids in modern Athens, some of even the middle class being worse off than the modern poor. Lacking a gas stove, central heating, an in-house water closet and a family car, the poorer kids, though still elevated from the rank of hobo, were far less removed than those kids of today. Many of their parents and grandparents had grown up in an even less advanced time, in a time when most families were lucky to have one room all to themselves, in a time before grocery stores, in a time when people were generally sick all through the winter due to malnutrition (Allitt 2014). Also, the "homelessness epidemic" of the 1980s had yet to occur, so it would have been far easier for them to see hobos, most of them young men, as a romanticized quirk of their society rather than their status as an endemic problem, perhaps the same way we view the bohemian characters of "Rent".

    All of that said, there exists in the 21st century a HUGE gap between hobos/homeless and the rest of society. More than that, any educated person these days has little excuse for not recognizing that homelessness is an endemic problem affecting families in rather harmful ways. I think it is in rather poor taste for privileged people to dress as a mockery of the families, the veterans and the otherwise dispossessed that make up the homeless, but I believe that this photo and its historical context may elucidate why people may do so without any malevolent intentions. Understanding this gap in knowledge may be useful in closing said gap and ending the practice in the future.

Afterword: I generally have a mixed opinion of the "It's a Culture, Not a Costume" movement; I understand it's in poor taste to dress up "as a Mexican" or "as a Japanese", but some of their examples are a bit too sensitive in my opinion. There should be nothing controversial about a white woman--or man, for that matter--dressing up as a geisha girl, just like there should be nothing controversial about an Asian dressing up as a cowboy, nor a black man dressing up as a Nazi soldier, nor a girl dressing up as superman. A white girl dressing up "as a Chinese", "as a Pacific Islander" or "as an American-Indian"? Yes, that's racist and should be discouraged. But a white girl dressing up as "Mulan", "Moana" or "Pocahontas"? I fail to see the harm in that; by that logic, any non-white girl should be forbidden from dressing up as Anna, Elsa or Ariel, much less real-life celebrities such as Susan B. Anthony and Eleanor Roosevelt; any non-white boy should be forbidden from dressing as Superman or Spiderman, much less The Great Emancipator Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps I've gone on too long about this, but I've had a chip on my shoulder about this since 2013, when this movement first came to be. 

Sources:

Allitt, Patrick. 2014. The Industrial Revolution. The Great Courses. Chantilly, Virginia.

    This is a lecture series detailing the evolution of poverty and privilege in Europe, America and eventually the rest of the world, from the 18th century to the present day. Contact me at nr303414@ohio.edu or 740-591-9511 if you want to know the specific lectures to which I'm referring. 

Ohio History Connection. https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Electricity#:~:text=It%20was%20not%20until%20President,had%20electricity%20in%20their%20homes.

    This was my source for the electrification question. Of course, city dwellers would have been more privileged than rural folk.

Shaw, Richard A., with assistance from the Athens County Historical Society and Museum. 2007. Images of America: Athens. p. 55, photograph 2. Arcadia Publishing. Charleston, South Carolina.

    This is the book from which I scanned the photo of "Hobo Day".

Further resources:

Kay, Terry. 1976. The Year the Lights Came On. Center Point Publishing. Thorndike, Maine.

    This book is partially novel, partially memoir, set in rural Georgia when the Southern countryside was finally electrified.

Further Thoughts on Geographies of Resistance

After this past week’s discussion on geographies of resistance, I wanted to look more into the topic because I found it really interesting and I came across Olga Davis’ (1999) article “In the Kitchen: Transforming the Academy Through Safe Spaces of Resistance.” This article frames the African American kitchen legacy into one that can be applied to the modern world of academia. The goal of this is to “transform institutions of higher learning in ways similar to those their foremothers in the Southern plantation kitchens of the nineteenth century used to advance African American women's empowerment through self-definition while rejecting objectification as other” (Davis 1999, 364). In the beginning of class we briefly discussed this idea of the kitchen as a site of resistance when talking about the geographies of home. I like that through this article I got a more in-depth understanding of what this means and why it is important in the understanding of resistance geography and social justice. It also further instills that almost all of the themes in this class work together in some way — or have some connection to each other. Not only does this article have connection to our discussions on home but I also found a connection to our reading from Design Studio on spatial justice. When Davis (1999) says “The notion of safe spaces resonates with a womanist theoretical perspective which views the world (in this case, the academic world) as a dynamic place where the goal is not merely to survive or to fit in or to cope; but rather to feel ownership and accountability” (365), I think of the principles of “the rights to be, thrive, express and connect” (Design Studio for Social Intervention). The kitchen here is, historically, a way for African American women in the United States to gain these senses of identity during the time of slavery. Bringing this into the modern age, Davis suggests that this type of resistance can be brought into the world of academia to create change in racial and gendered structures that exist within it.

Article:

In the Kitchen: Transforming the Academy Through Safe Spaces of Resistance by Olga Idriss Davis

References:

Davis, Olga Idriss. “In the Kitchen: Transforming the Academy through Safe Spaces of Resistance.” Western Journal of Communication 63, no. 3 (1999): 364–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319909374647. 

Design Studio for Social Intervention. Spatial Justice: A Frame for Reclaiming our Rights to Be, Thrive, Express, and Connect. Accessed at: http://ds4si.org/storage/SpatialJustice_ds4si.pdf.

Fear of Being in a Public Space as A Woman

 In class, we talked a lot about geographies of fear, specifically women’s vulnerability of being in a public space. Sexual harassment and acts of violence in public spaces are an everyday occurrence in which affects the day-to-day lives of woman. It’s important to understand these fears and realize that this behavior is often times dismissed with no consequences. These spaces of fear are created from characteristics that invoke fear and everyone internalizes fear differently. Although, men have a significant vulnerability to violent crime victimization as we learned in Alec Brownlow’s reading. 

    Last March, a few of my friends and I took a trip to Fort Lauderdale for spring break and had an experience of sexual harassment in which I was genuinely scared for my life while being in a public space. We were out on the town and towards the end of the night, we were getting ready to head back to our hotel when two older men approached my friend and I and asked if we wanted to go on a “boat ride.” We kindly declined and told them that we’ve had a long night and wanted to get back. Our other friends already caught a ride back to the hotel, so it was just my friend and myself. The men kept questioning about where we were from and continued to make inappropriate comments about our bodies and how “sexy” we were. Nicely, we told them that we were college students on spring break and that we had to get back to our hotel. Trying to quickly find our Uber to get home, the men continued to shout provocative words at us and said that they’d come to our hotel and show us a good time. When the Uber arrived, the two men tried to get into the vehicle with us and we tried to push them out and had to shout that they weren’t with us until the driver yelled at them to get out. This night was incredibly traumatizing, I can still remember the fear I felt in my body. I was angry with myself for not calling the police being the situation could’ve gone way worse. There are times where I still witness sexual harassment in a public space. The difference now is that instead of reacting nicely, I speak up and defend myself against this disgusting behavior as long as I’m not alone and in a public space. I'm tired of pointing my nose at the ground and allowing others to treat me like I'm a piece of meat. It's absolutely mortifying and degrading. 

From a young age, we are taught to never walk alone because it is not safe. You never know what someone’s intentions are, which makes it almost impossible to stand up for yourself without becoming feared for your safety. In Kristen Days article on being feared, the study instead was on men’s experiences of being feared. It is too simple to portray all women as victims in this equation and all men as aggressors. We must work instead to increase women's real and perceived safety while acknowledging that women and men occupy a range of positions in these relationships. (Day, 2006.) I thought this study was extremely insightful and explained how gender discourses are increasingly challenged.

https://youtu.be/sdn15-t7kg0