in defense of graffiti

One of the most interesting things to me ever is when people write on things that they're not supposed to. It's using literacy to rebel, and it's cool. I mean, it's really cool when graffiti voices some kind of political dissent, but I get just as excited about kids writing on the fill-in-the-bubble surveys we're administering as I do when I hear about the "more like homeland insecurity" that Melissa saw in Atlanta.

But today I'm getting the impression that I may be in the minority on this one. When I checked my email early this morning, I was excited to see that the National Geographic Photo of the Day is this:


The caption, however, reads,

Graffiti covers the side of a ship in one of Denmark's many harbors. Vandalism is rare in this exceptionally peaceful, orderly society where a mere 2 percent of the national budget is spent on police, prisons, and courts. A common saying in the patriotic nation holds that "Denmark is a land where few have too much and even fewer have too little," a fact that they attribute to keeping the crime levels low.

giving me the distinct feeling that the caption-writer thinks graffiti is bad; it's vandalism.

Later in the morning, as I waited for my medium black coffee at Moka's, the local coffee shop, I read an article on the front page of today's paper called "Mobile's wannabe gang problem." The two images in the story are of graffiti. (I couldn't find them online, so below are my photos of the photos.)



The first one really gets me. The caption assures us that "it does not indicate gang 'turf' or a warning to rivals." Um, yea. It says love. Repeatedly the article cites the existence or lack thereof of gang graffiti as a major indicator of whether or not gangs exist in Mobile. Although school officials "have linked some fights to territorial conflicts ... school walls aren't painted with gang graffiti, and [the security director for the school system] doesn't see students wearing gang colors." Don't get me wrong, I'm not downplaying the gravity of the issue of gangs. I just don't see how graffiti and bandannas can be the only evidence available for piecing together a conclusion. The second caption above concludes that "while [the tag] appears to be gang-oriented, it is actually the painter displaying his artistic ability with a spraypaint can." While I take issue with the assumption that the tagger is male, I sort of like how Officer John Young can get down with the idea of graffiti as art. I don't even really think that the second tag is that cool per se. What I do think is cool is the way that taggers use their ability to write as a a way to inscribe public space. It's just so bold. It makes a passer-by see what the tagger has to say, even if it's unpleasant.

Anyway, the survey we're administering asks the kids

Agree/Disagree: Kids who are in a gang get respect from other kids in my neighborhood.

How much do you worry about gangs in your neighborhood?

Have you ever been involved in a gang?

Are you currently involved in a gang?

Do you hang out with members of a gang?

Analyzing this data seems to me like a more reliable source of information about the state of gangs in Mobile than looking at the graffiti and scratching our heads, no?


They published this in TIME a bit ago: