Graffiti Perversion

Graffiti is art, is it? And to whom? And in what fashion is it considered acceptable to impose on the general public? Graffiti is often negatively addressed because of the placement of the alleged “art,” the nature of the content, and the intention behind it. Yes, art is created to provoke the expression of emotion in humanity, frequently resulting from a change or for a change, so in that respect, sure, let’s call it art, for art’s sake. Graffiti is a world-renowned activity, but portrayed in a multitude of ways. Specifically speaking to Bojorquez, while he wasn’t a member to a gang, he got his start on the streets, inspired by the streets, and for the streets. He references the United States Constitution in failed attempt to prove the two documented pieces of text comparable. The Old English style font is supposed to instill a sense of dominant permanence amongst the exclusive group, as well as the misinterpreted significance of the government instated manuscript. According to the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This law has been radically manipulated by many, including the gangs of Los Angeles, which Bojorquez alludes to. While gang graffiti is their version of free vocalization, it does not appeal to the majority vote, therefore it is not operating as a democratic system. He defines gang graffiti as “markings by generations of rebellious youth announcing their pride and strength to all outsiders,” and states that “we all have the same mother, rebellion.” If that is true, and that sense of anarchy does in fact exist, than that given circumstance, by no mean, corresponds to the ideals of the constitution. Charles Bojorquez’s graffiti art emulates the street society, but through a variety of mediums that doesn’t involve destruction of government property. He said that he has done work for “movie and product advertising agencies” as his day job, which is highly affective, as the media appeals to the masses, thus rebelling though government support. Bojorquez solicits several questions. “Does graffiti have intent, purpose, cultural identity, history and create unity? Who owns the public space and who has the right to speak and be heard?” It is absurd to question the purpose of graffiti, after writing a several page log of its use and intention of said supposed “art.” The “public space” is owned by the government, that also happens to support even criminals’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rebelling against those higher powers, that are instilled to provoke a universal justice, is just plain ignorant.

Danielle Korman, BFA 3 Stage Manager