Cities and urban locations vary not only on their size, topography, the people who live, work, and visit there, the kinds of businesses they support, but on the types of structures that are built to enable the activities that occur in these locales.
Most cities and urban locations also have considerable diversity in the types of neighborhoods that develop within their confines, including ones that are more residential in nature, and those that have more commercial buildings where people work, shop, or ones in which they learn (i.e., schools) or worship.
This diversity is frequently reflected in the visual landscape, including the types of structures that are built and their condition, and the amount, type and quality of the green space, like parks, ravines, etc.
Although the question of whether a city (or indeed a neighborhood) has more graffiti, etc. than others) is open for empirical evaluation, and doing so would require an enormous amount of resources, here are some thoughts about why this may occur.
Despite being frequently beat up by critical criminologists, the Routine Activities Theory, though a relatively simple explanation, might provide some initial insights. According to this explanation, the presence of graffiti and street art might be facilitated by a considerable number of suitable targets, no or few capable guardians, and highly motivated people.
With respect to suitable targets. Cities (or neighborhoods) where there are lots of abandoned buildings (from houses that are speculated on, to factories and warehouses), train yards, and parking lots, may be ripe for graffiti writers and street artists to do their thing. Additionally, in these areas there may also be certain norms about both private and public property. In other words it may be okay to spray graffiti on a surface that is slated for demolition, new siding, or a new paint job. On the other hand, if the structure is a house of worship then it may be deemed off limits as are brick surfaces of a building, whereas the wooden doors may be up for grabs as they can be easily painted over are.
Closely related to this issue is how a city’s Department of Public Works or Business Improvement District/s engage in graffiti/street art abatement. For example, they may clean or buff graffiti/street art on an irregular basis. Inevitably this can set the tone for the abundance of graffiti/street art or graffiti writers/street artists to seek alternative surfaces. Along with lots of suitable targets, a city or neighborhood may provide better access to materials, like paint, markers, etc. used by writers and artists in their applications. Additional factors may be proximity to copy shops, printers etc. where street artists can print their own stickers, wheat pastes etc. at a fraction of the cost than doing this on a home printer. As for the many types of street art, this may in fact be actively encouraged by an arts district.
In terms of capable guardians, a neighborhood may not have “enough” motivated private security guards, municipal police officers, or concerned neighbors to respond to graffiti writers and street artists. This may be because the public and private or public security officers are busy doing more important things, don’t really care, or the citizens in that neighborhood are apathetic, or have communicated to public and private safety officials that they want them to focus on more important challenges.
Finally, a city or neighborhood may have an active graffiti and street art subculture or scene. People who are part of this collectivity typically know each other, hang together, and collaborate (or sometimes compete) with each on graffiti/street art. All told they are part of the street culture that develops in different parts of an urban location.
Every relatively large city has graffiti and street art. Because of the ephemeral nature of graffiti and street art, the amount and types of this work changes and can be more or less than that which appears in similar sized urban locations. Understanding the subtle dynamics is more complicated to understand, but worth knowing about if one is to take this modern form of visual communication seriously.
Photo: Robert Wallace
Athens Graffiti
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/127660312_08e31718c9_c.jpg532800Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-07-25 22:10:312022-07-25 22:10:31Why do some cities appear to have more graffiti and street art than others?
Summer is here. It’s warm outside, many people think that COVID-19 has been beat, have cabin fever, disposable income, can take time off work, and want to travel and take a vacation.
After the decision to travel has been made, then it’s time to make numerous choices about where to go, when to go, what to see, how long, how to get there, and where to stay and eat.
And if you are traveling with another person (i.e., a friend or family) then there are always compromises that need to be made.
Some of these decisions should probably be made before leaving your dwelling whereas others can be made while on the road or at the spur of the moment.
These are perennial questions that many people in this particular situation ask but for some strange reason don’t really think through. For example, let’s say you want to visit Paris, France. Many tourists who go there often feel obligated to visit the popular attractions like the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, the Musée d’Orsay, various memorials, and possibly neighborhoods like Marais and the Latin Quarter.
But visiting these destinations can be unnecessarily challenging experiences. The lines to get into popular museums and galleries are frequently long, the popular venues and neighborhoods are crowded, the signs may be confusing, and once inside the attractions it’s a less than ideal setting to glean the information that is presented. In short, the average visitor ends up becoming overwhelmed and exhausted.
Traveling and vacationing can be especially challenging for women, visible racial and ethnic minorities, senior citizens, the disabled, and people traveling with infants, small children, and animals.
The more important question tourists and vacationers should probably ask is why should you subject yourself to these kinds of experiences? If it’s because that’s what everybody does when they go to Paris (or some other popular destination), or to post photos on your Instagram, or to show your friends that you are cosmopolitan, then I’d argue that this is a big waste of your time and money.
But so many people’s approach to travel and vacationing is simply just that.
They come home from vacation exhausted and frustrated and vow to do it differently next time.
Most people are poor travelers. This may be because they do it so infrequently and thus they are not experienced, don’t really know where to visit, what to bring along, and where to stay and eat.
So how can this frequently negative experience be minimized?
At the core of traveling is doing some thoughtful planning to avoid a boatload of regret during and once you return home. Ask yourself tough but thoughtful questions, rather than leaving it up to someone else (like a tour operator) or assume that you’ll “figure it out once you get there.”
Determine beforehand exactly what you want to accomplish by going on vacation and if the possible destinations that are on your short list will enable you to achieve this. Make multiple lists asking yourself what you want to visit and why.
Talk to people who have recently visited the location that you want to go to. Ask them what they liked and disliked the most. If finding appropriate people to talk to is too difficult then visit travel web sites like www.tripadvisor.com or www.yelp.com to get a sense of where people visit, what they see and experience, why they go to those locations, and how. This task should not be too difficult, but if you want to maximize your enjoyment start by asking questions now rather than later.
Photo Credit:
Fredrik Rubensson
Louvres
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/3816576973_54d8d6a903_o-e1658190407237.jpg414500Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-07-19 00:16:412022-11-13 19:22:02Whose vacation is it anyways?
The recent social media discussion over the work and legacy of Frida Kahlo, while somewhat interesting and entertaining, is in many respects disappointing. Some criticism argues that, because Kahlo came from a privileged upper class family, was comparatively light-skinned, and was not purely indigenous, that she had minimal right to use the iconography, imagery, and symbols associated with this culture. Even worse that Kahlo’s work harmed people of indigenous or Mestizo origins and was engaging in cultural appropriation.
Over the past several decades many people, organizations, and events have been accused of appropriating, co-opting, and fetishizing the symbols, icons, imagery, and styles of marginalized groups in order to commodify their work from which they profit. The appropriation, etc. critique, is especially used to criticize creative pursuits including cooking, dance, fashion, fiction, film, hair styles, music, theatre, and visual art.
However, sometimes this type of labelling is done by casual observers and activists with varying degrees of expertise, especially by people who have minimal knowledge in the subject matters that they feel compelled to voice their opinion.
The appropriation etc. argument, similar to the lived experience one, implies that regardless of the quality of the work, so-called “outsiders” should not borrow cultural symbols and only people, etc. with direct roots in the cultures, ethnicities, nationalities, races or religions (i.e., “Insiders”) should be allowed to create works using the icons, etc. of the marginalized groups that they belong to or come from.
All told, accusing an artist, etc. of appropriation, etc. is basically suggesting that they are engaging in cultural insensitivity and distorting the original meaning of the symbols, icons, and styles they use in their work.
These charges, however, are frequently applied to individuals, etc. in a haphazard way. For example, when a well-known and respected graffiti writer or street artist, borrows images, symbols or conventions from certain ethnic or racial groups, etc. rarely are they accused in the same manner as artists who show their work in galleries or museums. Likewise, few people voice concerns over appropriation, etc. when their friends or acquaintances adorn their bodies with Japanese sleeve tattoos, or Nordic or Maori symbol tattoos.
In many cases using the labels of appropriation etc. is justified, but in lots other situations the evidence supporting the charges is not present, it’s flimsy, and/or the logic surrounding the charges is seriously muddled.
Why should we care when this kind of critique is made?
Clearly there are more important challenges facing the world, but hurling the accusation of appropriation, etc. against creative people and organizations has the following interrelated negative consequences:
First, it frequently minimizes the hard work of creators.
Second, it implies that “outsiders” work is theft or unimportant.
Third, it diminishes the creativity of the work of the artist, writer, dancer, etc.
Fourth, the words appropriation, co-optation, commodification, and fetishization are subjective terms.
Fifth these labels are typically misapplied, or not applied correctly.
Sixth, using these terms it is often a manifestation of political correctness.
Seventh, it fails to acknowledge the resources that goes into producing a piece of work.
Eighth, the harm that the creative person is rarely specified.
Ninth, it ignores the realization that all creative work is derivative, and,
Tenth, this kind of criticism is frequently overly simplistic and plays into the current cancel culture trend.
Why then does this occur?
I think that the rush to criticize “outsiders” with appropriation, etc. can be linked to three principle reasons.
Judging from the criticisms, is It seems as the criticism does not reflect a deep understanding of the history of the creative activity that they are maligning.
Few critics understand the nature of creation. Almost all creative work is either consciously or unconsciously derivative (see, for example, Austin Kleon’s Steal like an Artist). People who understand this principle are even encouraged to understand their predecessors so they can build upon it.
The fact that a person can label an action engaged in by others as expropriating someone else or a culture is not sufficient. There should be concrete evidence and nuanced argumentation.
How can this situation be best addressed?
The frequent criticism that a person, organization or event is an example of appropriation, etc. should be challenged. It’s too simple to accuse an individual , etc. with this charge. The biggest way to combat this charge it to become knowledgeable, beyond a simple Wikipedia entry, about the subject area in ways the arm chair critic is not.
Photo Credit
Frida Kahlo,
Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird (1940),
Harry Ransom Center
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2022-07-11-at-12.53.43-PM.png362276Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-07-11 11:49:062024-09-15 12:14:52Misapplying appropriation, co-optation, commodification & fetishization
Why do some cities appear to have more graffiti and street art than others?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossCities and urban locations vary not only on their size, topography, the people who live, work, and visit there, the kinds of businesses they support, but on the types of structures that are built to enable the activities that occur in these locales.
Most cities and urban locations also have considerable diversity in the types of neighborhoods that develop within their confines, including ones that are more residential in nature, and those that have more commercial buildings where people work, shop, or ones in which they learn (i.e., schools) or worship.
This diversity is frequently reflected in the visual landscape, including the types of structures that are built and their condition, and the amount, type and quality of the green space, like parks, ravines, etc.
That being said, frequently people who travel or vacation to or in other cities note the abundance of graffiti and street art in these locations. Although these individuals may not be able to distinguish among different types of graffiti, street art, murals, and public art, this visual information typically impacts visitors and tourists.
Although the question of whether a city (or indeed a neighborhood) has more graffiti, etc. than others) is open for empirical evaluation, and doing so would require an enormous amount of resources, here are some thoughts about why this may occur.
Despite being frequently beat up by critical criminologists, the Routine Activities Theory, though a relatively simple explanation, might provide some initial insights. According to this explanation, the presence of graffiti and street art might be facilitated by a considerable number of suitable targets, no or few capable guardians, and highly motivated people.
With respect to suitable targets. Cities (or neighborhoods) where there are lots of abandoned buildings (from houses that are speculated on, to factories and warehouses), train yards, and parking lots, may be ripe for graffiti writers and street artists to do their thing. Additionally, in these areas there may also be certain norms about both private and public property. In other words it may be okay to spray graffiti on a surface that is slated for demolition, new siding, or a new paint job. On the other hand, if the structure is a house of worship then it may be deemed off limits as are brick surfaces of a building, whereas the wooden doors may be up for grabs as they can be easily painted over are.
Closely related to this issue is how a city’s Department of Public Works or Business Improvement District/s engage in graffiti/street art abatement. For example, they may clean or buff graffiti/street art on an irregular basis. Inevitably this can set the tone for the abundance of graffiti/street art or graffiti writers/street artists to seek alternative surfaces. Along with lots of suitable targets, a city or neighborhood may provide better access to materials, like paint, markers, etc. used by writers and artists in their applications. Additional factors may be proximity to copy shops, printers etc. where street artists can print their own stickers, wheat pastes etc. at a fraction of the cost than doing this on a home printer. As for the many types of street art, this may in fact be actively encouraged by an arts district.
In terms of capable guardians, a neighborhood may not have “enough” motivated private security guards, municipal police officers, or concerned neighbors to respond to graffiti writers and street artists. This may be because the public and private or public security officers are busy doing more important things, don’t really care, or the citizens in that neighborhood are apathetic, or have communicated to public and private safety officials that they want them to focus on more important challenges.
Finally, a city or neighborhood may have an active graffiti and street art subculture or scene. People who are part of this collectivity typically know each other, hang together, and collaborate (or sometimes compete) with each on graffiti/street art. All told they are part of the street culture that develops in different parts of an urban location.
Every relatively large city has graffiti and street art. Because of the ephemeral nature of graffiti and street art, the amount and types of this work changes and can be more or less than that which appears in similar sized urban locations. Understanding the subtle dynamics is more complicated to understand, but worth knowing about if one is to take this modern form of visual communication seriously.
Photo: Robert Wallace
Athens Graffiti
Whose vacation is it anyways?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossSummer is here. It’s warm outside, many people think that COVID-19 has been beat, have cabin fever, disposable income, can take time off work, and want to travel and take a vacation.
After the decision to travel has been made, then it’s time to make numerous choices about where to go, when to go, what to see, how long, how to get there, and where to stay and eat.
And if you are traveling with another person (i.e., a friend or family) then there are always compromises that need to be made.
Some of these decisions should probably be made before leaving your dwelling whereas others can be made while on the road or at the spur of the moment.
These are perennial questions that many people in this particular situation ask but for some strange reason don’t really think through. For example, let’s say you want to visit Paris, France. Many tourists who go there often feel obligated to visit the popular attractions like the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, the Musée d’Orsay, various memorials, and possibly neighborhoods like Marais and the Latin Quarter.
But visiting these destinations can be unnecessarily challenging experiences. The lines to get into popular museums and galleries are frequently long, the popular venues and neighborhoods are crowded, the signs may be confusing, and once inside the attractions it’s a less than ideal setting to glean the information that is presented. In short, the average visitor ends up becoming overwhelmed and exhausted.
Traveling and vacationing can be especially challenging for women, visible racial and ethnic minorities, senior citizens, the disabled, and people traveling with infants, small children, and animals.
The more important question tourists and vacationers should probably ask is why should you subject yourself to these kinds of experiences? If it’s because that’s what everybody does when they go to Paris (or some other popular destination), or to post photos on your Instagram, or to show your friends that you are cosmopolitan, then I’d argue that this is a big waste of your time and money.
But so many people’s approach to travel and vacationing is simply just that.
They come home from vacation exhausted and frustrated and vow to do it differently next time.
Most people are poor travelers. This may be because they do it so infrequently and thus they are not experienced, don’t really know where to visit, what to bring along, and where to stay and eat.
So how can this frequently negative experience be minimized?
At the core of traveling is doing some thoughtful planning to avoid a boatload of regret during and once you return home. Ask yourself tough but thoughtful questions, rather than leaving it up to someone else (like a tour operator) or assume that you’ll “figure it out once you get there.”
Determine beforehand exactly what you want to accomplish by going on vacation and if the possible destinations that are on your short list will enable you to achieve this. Make multiple lists asking yourself what you want to visit and why.
Talk to people who have recently visited the location that you want to go to. Ask them what they liked and disliked the most. If finding appropriate people to talk to is too difficult then visit travel web sites like www.tripadvisor.com or www.yelp.com to get a sense of where people visit, what they see and experience, why they go to those locations, and how. This task should not be too difficult, but if you want to maximize your enjoyment start by asking questions now rather than later.
Photo Credit:
Fredrik Rubensson
Louvres
Misapplying appropriation, co-optation, commodification & fetishization
/by Jeffrey Ian RossThe recent social media discussion over the work and legacy of Frida Kahlo, while somewhat interesting and entertaining, is in many respects disappointing. Some criticism argues that, because Kahlo came from a privileged upper class family, was comparatively light-skinned, and was not purely indigenous, that she had minimal right to use the iconography, imagery, and symbols associated with this culture. Even worse that Kahlo’s work harmed people of indigenous or Mestizo origins and was engaging in cultural appropriation.
Over the past several decades many people, organizations, and events have been accused of appropriating, co-opting, and fetishizing the symbols, icons, imagery, and styles of marginalized groups in order to commodify their work from which they profit. The appropriation, etc. critique, is especially used to criticize creative pursuits including cooking, dance, fashion, fiction, film, hair styles, music, theatre, and visual art.
A lot of this critique of cultural appropriation is appropriate. Examples might include white rappers raised in the suburbs who sing songs with African American Vernacular English, nonindigenous performers wearing Native American regalia, and people with no connection to the Holocaust tattooing themselves with numbers used by the Nazis in internment camps.
However, sometimes this type of labelling is done by casual observers and activists with varying degrees of expertise, especially by people who have minimal knowledge in the subject matters that they feel compelled to voice their opinion.
The appropriation etc. argument, similar to the lived experience one, implies that regardless of the quality of the work, so-called “outsiders” should not borrow cultural symbols and only people, etc. with direct roots in the cultures, ethnicities, nationalities, races or religions (i.e., “Insiders”) should be allowed to create works using the icons, etc. of the marginalized groups that they belong to or come from.
All told, accusing an artist, etc. of appropriation, etc. is basically suggesting that they are engaging in cultural insensitivity and distorting the original meaning of the symbols, icons, and styles they use in their work.
These charges, however, are frequently applied to individuals, etc. in a haphazard way. For example, when a well-known and respected graffiti writer or street artist, borrows images, symbols or conventions from certain ethnic or racial groups, etc. rarely are they accused in the same manner as artists who show their work in galleries or museums. Likewise, few people voice concerns over appropriation, etc. when their friends or acquaintances adorn their bodies with Japanese sleeve tattoos, or Nordic or Maori symbol tattoos.
In many cases using the labels of appropriation etc. is justified, but in lots other situations the evidence supporting the charges is not present, it’s flimsy, and/or the logic surrounding the charges is seriously muddled.
Why should we care when this kind of critique is made?
Clearly there are more important challenges facing the world, but hurling the accusation of appropriation, etc. against creative people and organizations has the following interrelated negative consequences:
First, it frequently minimizes the hard work of creators.
Second, it implies that “outsiders” work is theft or unimportant.
Third, it diminishes the creativity of the work of the artist, writer, dancer, etc.
Fourth, the words appropriation, co-optation, commodification, and fetishization are subjective terms.
Fifth these labels are typically misapplied, or not applied correctly.
Sixth, using these terms it is often a manifestation of political correctness.
Seventh, it fails to acknowledge the resources that goes into producing a piece of work.
Eighth, the harm that the creative person is rarely specified.
Ninth, it ignores the realization that all creative work is derivative, and,
Tenth, this kind of criticism is frequently overly simplistic and plays into the current cancel culture trend.
Why then does this occur?
I think that the rush to criticize “outsiders” with appropriation, etc. can be linked to three principle reasons.
Judging from the criticisms, is It seems as the criticism does not reflect a deep understanding of the history of the creative activity that they are maligning.
Meanwhile, ease of access to social media, has enabled opine no matter how uninformed their opinions are.
Few critics understand the nature of creation. Almost all creative work is either consciously or unconsciously derivative (see, for example, Austin Kleon’s Steal like an Artist). People who understand this principle are even encouraged to understand their predecessors so they can build upon it.
The fact that a person can label an action engaged in by others as expropriating someone else or a culture is not sufficient. There should be concrete evidence and nuanced argumentation.
How can this situation be best addressed?
The frequent criticism that a person, organization or event is an example of appropriation, etc. should be challenged. It’s too simple to accuse an individual , etc. with this charge. The biggest way to combat this charge it to become knowledgeable, beyond a simple Wikipedia entry, about the subject area in ways the arm chair critic is not.
Photo Credit
Frida Kahlo,
Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird (1940),
Harry Ransom Center