Graffiti

Photo: Laurel street alley between 10^th and Broadway, Vancouver BC

         Since the 1970s graffiti has been associated with ‘urban degeneration’, a spatial scale of economic means (Carrington 2009). In Vancouver graffiti is still very much a marker for the social class of neighborhoods. The difference in pervasiveness of graffiti in the less wealthy communities vs. the more economically endowed parts of the city is clear; even within these larger sections of the city graffiti vs. non graffiti spaces seem to be segregated, for example alleyways vs. busy streets. The more wealthy sections of the city can fund the maintenance and preventative measures (like cameras) in their public space more efficiently than those areas with less funding. Thus inequality is one of the main discourses in and around graffiti. The geography of graffiti in the city reflects imagined communities and their, “challenge [to contemporary] notions of consumption driven public space”(Carrington 2009 and Anderson 1983).

            The definition of ‘graffiti’ is tied into its reputation as the media of the masses and middle class (Riggle 2010 and Carrington 2009). It has been debated widely whether or not graffiti is a form of art or vandalism (Riggle 2010 and Carrington 2009). The article, “Street Art: The Transfiguration of the Commonplaces” by Nicholas Riggle differentiates between ‘graffiti’ and ‘street art’. Street art, “tak[es] art out of the museum gallery and private collection and put[s] it in the stream of everyday life” (Riggle 2010). Whereas, Victoria Carrington uses graffiti as a comprehensive term which includes stickering, stenciling, tagging, throwups, graffiti, street art, bombing, vandalism ect. Riggle on the other hand posits that some graffiti can be considered street art if it meets certain criterion but that street art is not necessarily graffiti (2010). Graffiti is the desecration of public space but does not utilize the space in the way that street art does, Riggle sort of elevates certain forms of graffiti in an attempt to legitimize it as a public art form and disconnect it from its label of ‘vandalism’.

         Art is largely perceived as ordained by the mainstream and popular media; authenticated by its presence in museums and galleries (Carrington 2009 and Riggle 2010). Museums house art that is expensive to make and to see, viewed most frequently by the upper and middle classes and the pieces themselves are chosen by the same (Riggle 2010). In galleries art enjoys the protection of social norms and the law, as well as displaying the authorship of the artist, street artists give up the right to their work as well as the recognition and possibility of monetary gain (Riggle 2010). According to Riggle, a graffiti artist who sells his/her art is no longer deemed a graffiti artist by the graffiti community, but a sellout to the commercial industry (2010). Personally, I still really like commissioned graffiti and don’t agree that this should be the case. I like the idea of art available to the public for free and the reclaiming of the public space by the public.

         As long as the work is done in a public space graffiti and street art remain blurred (Riggle 2010). I disagree with vandalism, however the criterion differentiation vandalism from graffiti and art is unclear. The difference between graffiti and vandalism is that graffiti is done on public space whereas vandalism is done on private space (Riggle 2010). The definition blurs when one takes into consideration space owned by large corporations like billboards as opposed to the city, the public. In this capitalist society urban space has become a valued commodity and a dynamic canvas for both sanctioned and non-sanctioned graffiti (being advertisements) to express ideas and communicate within imagined communities (Anderson 1983 and Carrington 2009).

Bibliography

Anderson, Benedict 

                      1983. Imagined Communities, Pp. 9-46. London, New York: Verso.

Carrington, Victoria

2009. I Write, Therefore I Am: Texts in the City. Visual Communication. 8:409. Hawke Research Institute for Sustainable Societies, University of South Australia.

Mazarella, William

              2004. Culture, Globalization, Mediation. Annual Review of Anthropology 33:345-367.

Riggle, Nicholas Alden

2010. Street Art: The Transfiguration of the Commonplaces. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 68:3. The American Society for Aesthetics.

links:
http://www.blublu.org/

Jai Ho

  

According to Walter Benjamin’s definition of an object’s “aura” as, “that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art” the authenticity of the piece in relation to life history and context legitimizes the piece’s aura (Benjamin, 1936). Therefore, from Benjamin’s point of view films themselves lack “aura” due to the fragmentation and process of filming and editing as well as the disconnect between actor and viewer as compared to theater (Benjamin, 1936). Likewise, I don’t think that any of the Jai Ho videos have and “aura” in this sense; technology mediates the experience of the viewer and thus the experience is not authentic (Benjamin, 1936).

Benjamin maintains that a reproduction detaches the object from tradition and the authority of life history and tradition is what gives the “aura” authenticity (Benjamin, 1936). The dance sequence itself could be authenticated and thus have an “aura” through its own context and history (Benjamin, 1936). However, since it’s not a Bollywood movie it is a mere adaptation of a Bollywood musical genre and thus lacks authenticity and “aura”.

If “aura” could be allocated in various degrees than the Jai Ho from the film would have a higher “aura” in comparison to the youtube productions, but the fact of reproduction in “youtube” take the dance/song out of its context and thus none of the versions have “aura”. They are vapid reproductions, especially in relation to the “Pussycat Dolls Jai Ho” version in which the background story is completely different and the video is much more sexualized Americanized to capitalist ends.

         In spite of their lack of “aura” the other versions of “Jai Ho” reminded me of Geertz’s concept of “blurring of cultures”(Moore, 1999). The dances portray a hybrid of Western and Bollywood music videos incorporating both. In Arjun Appaduri’s article, “Global Ethnoscapes: Notes and Queries for a Transnational Anthropology” he describes a de-territorialization of culture largely due to media and globalization (1996). Putting Jai Ho at the end of this movie that focused on some of the most impoverished people in India reminded me of Appaduri’s point that, “…even the meanest and most hopeless of lives, the most brutal and dehumanizing of circumstances, the harshest of lived inequalities are now open to the play of the imagination”(1996). The film portrays the link between imagination, media, globalization and de-territorialization which have become integral to everyone’s social lives connecting the viewer on perhaps a less visceral, but no less important level than “aura”.  

Links:

Official YouTube version of Jai Ho from the end of the movie “Slumdog Millionaire”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRC4QrUwo9o

Pussycat Dolls Jai Ho

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc5OyXmHD0w

Slumdog Millionaire Dance Jai Ho

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7AuQKFlhXI

Karan Khokar and Divya Ikara- Jai Ho Dance - Tamil Sneham - Tampa, Florida

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqWkFMoLocM

Bibliography

Appadurai, Arjun
1996. Global Ethnoscapes: Notes and Queries for a Transnational Anthropology. In Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Pp. 48-65. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. 

Benjamin, Walter
1936. The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility. In Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, Volume 3: 1935-1938. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

Moore, Henrietta L.
1999. Anthropological theory at the turn of the century. In Anthropological Theory Today. Henrietta L. Moore, ed. Pp. 1-23. Cambridge: Polity Press. 

 

Globalization, Media and Culture

William Mazarella takes us through a short genealogy of anthropology after the introduction of the concept of globalization and he show how anthropology of media has been impacted and forced to reconstruct notions about culture and “authenticity”. He discusses mediation in relation to globalization and how the anthropology of media has changed with globalization. As well as, the process of mediation in regards to the construction of culture, the way we are now able to imagine it and then represent it to ourselves. Mazarella notes the way different form of media can limit or facilitate the spread of information, ideas and culture. He addresses in more detail the way in which media is flexible depending on the type duration (eg. Difference between and ad and a full length film) medium (tv, radio, census, press ect…).

Mazarella also notes the way that anthropological studies of media and globalization have been portrayed as stripping away the  “authenticity of culture”. Media is thus implicated in the creation of homogeneity via. globalization. When in fact globalization has increased emphasis on the “local” and thus the conservation of heterogeneity. Mazarella and Appaduri both address the reason for anthropologist’s fear of “Mc. World-style homogenization” stems from colonialism and “cultural imperialism”. I really like Mazarella’s image of a“Mc.World” and that this hasn’t come to pass in the wake of globalization. I wish Mazarella had focused a bit more on the adaptive strategies and appropriations of characteristics and aspects of mediation and globalization among cultures. His argument reminds me of the book, “Materializing the nation : commodities, consumption, and media in Papua New Guinea” by Robert Foster. Foster analyzes the way the media has been a large part of the contemporary notions of the “nation” in Papua New Guinea, in which there are so many separate cultures. It is also reminiscent of Benedict Anderson's concept of "Imagined communities" which are largely created and reinforced through media. An  example of an "imagined community" created by the media, is the "nation" and is the most directly related to media in relation to the Olympics' emphasis on unity apparent in most forms of media in 2010.

I agree with Mazarella that media and globalization go hand in hand and together are responsible for the high rate of cultural hybridity and change that has become the norm. I also agree with his deduction that cultural change and globalization has not yet led to homogenization and has on the contrary been utilized as a self-reflection. I think that his points would have been stronger had he given more examples in his article of the way in which cultures have  appropriated aspects of each other and adapted/changed without losing their “authenticity”.

Bibliography

Mazarella, William

         2004. Culture, Globalization, Mediation. Annual Review of Anthropology 33:345-367.

        Anderson, Benedict 

         1983. Imagined Communities, Pp. 9-46. London, New York: Verso.