Blog Post #4

Looking through advertisements about which I could write my third essay has been a really interesting experience. This assignment forces me to look at advertisements not as a consumer, or a victim of manipulation, but as a critic. One advertisement that I have found particularly interesting, and I will probably be writing my essay about it, is Axe shower gel. Axe shower gel has many advertisements that manipulate consumers by promising them that they will attract women if they use Axe. The most interesting thing about this advertisement, however, is that Axe shower gel is exactly the same as any other shower gel; the only difference is the marketing and the packaging. While many other advertisements only allude to the prospect of attracting women, Axe says it explicitly. In fact, there were some Axe advertisements that were so outrageously inappropriate that I chose other ones to bring to class on Wednesday. These advertisements have a sexual appeal, which always sells products, but they are also extremely misogynistic. Many of them show men with multiple women, all of whom are barely clothed. They have presumably been attracted to the Axe and are nothing more than objects to the user. One of these advertisements even depicts a man spraying Axe, and, as he sprays it, a woman actually materializes. This woman has no choice as to whether she wants to be standing in a shower half-naked with the man who sprays the Axe, but she materializes anyway. Analyzing Axe advertisements has been particularly interesting for me because I, in fact, am a user of Axe shower gel. Previously I had thought that I use Axe by chance, or convenience, but who knows? Maybe I too am a victim of these manipulative advertisements.

Blog Post #4 : The Role of Advertisements

On Saturday night, I was walking to a Halloween party and ran into two guys dressed up as characters from the movie "Suicide Squad.” We somehow started talking, the usual small talk — What year are you? What school are you in? What do you plan on majoring in? Etc. They said they wanted to go into engineering, and I told them I wanted to go into marketing and advertising to which they replied: “You are going to make more money than both of us combined!” I refuted this statement, saying that they are the ones that they are the ones that make new products and technology, and I’m just the one that convinces people to buy what they make. “Exactly,” they said. 

Every year, advertisers spend millions and millions of dollars on merely selling products. As these two potential engineers pointed out to me, without marketing a product the product itself is irrelevant to society. Thus, ultimately, advertisers’ primary objective is to make something that wasn’t a part of your life relevant to you and your needs. This is difficult to accomplish, yet advertisements and marketing campaigns succeed in doing this numerous times to millions of people every single day. The role the advertising industry plays in our society is perhaps the most substantial of all social institutions, yet it is somehow so discrete and subtle that we fail to realize how easily we buy into what they are selling.

Personally, I believe successful marketing campaign involve two things: Firstly, appeal to the masses, and secondly, capitalize on societal stereotypes. Without being able to communicate effectively to intrigue and communicate a message to a target audience, the ad fails. Similarly, the more relevant the ad is to the social context in which it lives, the more powerful it will be in its aim to grab peoples’ attention and linger in their memory. We touched upon this in class this past week, and I’m looking forward to discussing it further and analyzing it while working on the next essay assignment.

Blog Post #4

I am very interested in advertising -- the mechanics, the process, the outcome, and the perspectives. Notably, I was captivated by a lot of the ideas described by James B. Twitchell in his essay, "What We Are to Advertisers." He says "mass production means mass marketing, and mass marketing means the creation of mass stereotypes." I find this statement very intriguing because the writer connects mass production with mass marketing with mass stereotypes, three important factors of advertising that each build off of each other. In fact, it is interesting that the writer acknowledges the link between advertising and the formation of stereotypes because propaganda is one of the most defining aspects of advertising. For example, during the World Wars, every Rosie the Riveter advertisement was a propaganda attempt to show the strength and power of women during this time. Advertisers use ads to spread ideas and often these ideas implement stereotypes about the object or group being depicted. And, these blown up stereotypes are often created because of the exaggeration of certain ideas, the focus on specific colors, and the strategic attempt of the advertiser to hone in on specific aspects that will capture the attention of the masses.

The Effectiveness of an Ad

All advertisement is effectively suggestion. There is no ad that does not aim to brainwash people into thinking one way or another or buying a product or service. At the surface, ads do one of three things: They convince you to buy a product that you didn't know you needed (eg. a wearable towel), they convince you to think in a different way about something otherwise controversial (eg. a presidential/congressional candidate), they convince you their product is better than a similar one (eg. Apple phones versus Samsung phones). However, there's much more to advertisements than just attention to the product. Advertisers all have an agenda that they convey to their audience, which they do knowingly or unknowingly. 

Take this ad for instance. It seems like it is just a simple coffee ad, but who is it trying to appeal to? What does it imply? Firstly, it's a heterosexual couple; this isn't a bad thing, though it does show that the creator of the ad and/or product may be uncomfortable with homosexuality and they are trying to avoid it, or they are trying to appeal to an audience who is heterosexual and/or uncomfortable with homosexuality. Whether or not the creator of the ad and/or product intended to create such a view of sexuality in their ad, they still did and it will affect the viewer's opinions subliminally. Similarly, they are both white, which sends a message about who they intend to have buy their product. More importantly, both of the people in this ad appear to be rich or at least very well off: they're both well dressed, implying they have good jobs; they have good hair, perfect skin, perfect teeth, and perfect features. The advertiser is claiming that this is who the product is intended for, that this is the normal family they expect to reach out to: a rich white couple.

At first glance, this ad doesn't do anything for the viewer or make them interested in it in any way. But the message will stick with them; this is part of how people create a basis for what is "normal," which impacts their view on the world, creating a defined line between what is normal and what is not. This not only affects how they think of treat and others, but also of how they think of themselves. If they are not rich, white, good looking, or heterosexual, they will feel some sort of difference and think of themselves below the "line of acceptability" that the advertiser has instilled in them. If they are (or think they are) above this line, then they will think of themselves as better than the people below them. Advertisers are partly responsible for the tension between different socioeconomic, racial, and sexual groups. 

An Ad that I Like

When I saw the option to write about my least favorite ad this week, the first thing that came to mind was that I dislike most of the ads I see. However, I do remember a specific commercial that I actually kind of liked. It's a commercial for Charles Schwab Wealth Management that I've seen on PBS before. There are many different versions of the ad, all emphasizing that it's important to ask questions and know where your money is going. My favorite version is one with a little boy and his dad who have just been to visit a broker. (https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7Dai/charles-schwab-why) The little boy asks his dad lots of questions on the way home; "Who was that man?" "do you pay him?" "how much?" the response to this third question posed is a confused "I don't know exactly." When the boy asks if his dad gets a refund if he's not happy with the service, the dad says no. The commercial ends with the boy asking "why not?" and a voice-over of a woman saying "are you asking enough questions about the way your wealth is managed?"
Watching this commercial doesn't make me want to suddenly invest all my money with Charles Schwab, but I do really like it. The other versions of the commercial pretty much have the same content, but I like this one the most because it has a little boy asking the questions. I think that's a very clever way of communicating to the audience that being able to ask questions about where their money is going is very important without saying it in an intimidating way. Children are naturally curious, so it's not at all unusual to see a kid asking his dad lots of questions about seemingly normal things. The kid also doesn't seem to think he's asking about a serious topic, he's just trying to gather information about the world like all kids do. The confusion of the dad when trying to answer the questions, however, communicates that what the kid is asking are very legitimate questions. The dad is realizing that questions he thought had simple answers actually don't, and I suppose that's where it's implied that at Charles Schwab the answers are simple. Having a kid ask the questions adds a tone of innocence and harmlessness that I find makes the ad very appealing.

Advertising in this Day and Age

It is common to see examples of sexist advertisements back during the 1940's and 50's with the intention of selling products either to make women appear more desirable or more "useful" towards their supposed husband and children.  While ads such as those would definitely seem out of place with their blatant misogyny, we cannot say that these types of commercials have completely vanished.  Rather, they have evolved.

These types of ads, now targeting a younger audience, go after the insecurities of a teenage girl going through puberty and suffering from acne, which is to be expected.  However, these ads create an insecurity that not only is acne not normal, but is the reason for your unhappiness and loneliness.  Ads such as these target a younger audience so that once these girls grow older and are less impressionable, it will be easier to advertise to them as their insecurities were already exposed and targeted at a younger age. 

Advertisement companies now feed off of the insecurity of women, to create a market and a culture where this spreads from generation to generation.

Bad Ads

The milk industry has been heavily advertising all around me for all of my life. I remember the huge "Got Milk?" posters hung in the gyms of my elementary and middle schools and the multitude of magazine ads with celebrities endorsing milk as their go-to source of calcium. All of these campaigns were relatively harmless, but there was one set of ads released in 2011 that received dramatic backlash and personally offended women everywhere:

This approach paints women as irrational, hysterical beasts who can only be sedated by milk. The men in the ads look terrified as if they were about to be eaten alive by these estrogen-fueled monsters. The ad campaign even had a corresponding website, everythingidoiswong.org, which monitored "global PMS levels" and encouraged consumers to buy milk for PMS. The fact that the ads and website target the significant others (or, as the ads insinuate, victims) of women with PMS adds an extra level of offense and condescension. I have no idea why advertisers thought this approach was appropriate, but it was nothing but upsetting to me and millions of other "irrational" women.

Commercials & My Least Favorite Ad

Advertisements obviously are supposed to make an audience want to purchase a product. Although it can be easy to tell which commercials are aimed at men versus women, I never really considered the air time of such commercials until a year ago, when I first began learning about the creation of advertisements. Air time of televised advertisements is key. There are way more beauty-product and house-cleaning ads during daytime television than nighttime television. And during a sports game, you are much more likely to see an ad for men's body spray or beer. In some way, this seems offensive. But, it's hard to define what's offensive about it. Regardless, it's genius. Obviously, these television and product companies have a very specific, and most likely successful, marketing strategy because commercials are played like this on every channel. Even commercials for children are played earlier in the day, when children are more likely to be watching. But, in reality, they're not commercials for children; they're commercials for parents, simply using children to get moms and dads to buy a product.

Commercials, in most cases, do not care how or why they appeal to you, all they care about is that they do. Their objective is to get you to pull out your credit card or drive to the nearest store and buy their product, regardless of how they get you to do so. I am excited to talk more during class about some of the deeper, almost subliminal, tactics used in advertisements, both from the past and in the present.

When I think of advertisements that I absolutely cannot stand, the first one that comes to mind is the Game of War commercial with model Kate Upton. This mobile gaming app actually has a series of ads starring Kate Upton, but they all ultimately sicken me. It is no secret that Upton is an attractive woman, but I could not be any less attracted to these commercials. The game company is using Upton as a stereotypical "hot and sexy" lure. Between the way she is dressed, or shall I say not dressed, it is evident that the Game of War advertisements are targeting men. I find it insulting that any company would have the audacity to make an advertisement like these ones that are basically gaining downloads for the app because of Kate Upton's appearance. It's stuff like this that reinforces the stereotype that men are pigs, and I cannot stand that.

My Least Favourite Ad

You would wonder how an ad for a pen could be remotely sexist, but weirdly enough, such ads exist. This is the ad for the BIC pen.

This implications of this ad are infuriating. It insinuates that women have to keep up their image of delicacy and submissiveness by the phrase 'Act like a lady'. At the same time, it says that women should 'Work like a boss'. To me, this means that although women cannot be the boss, they should work just as hard. And the worst of all, 'Think like a man'. Why do we have to think like men? What qualities do they contain that are superior to ours? This ad provoked worldwide outrage and the company had to apologise for it, but it is disgusting that people could think that this ad in any way celebrates Women's Day.

Post 4- my least favorite advertising

Although they aren't magazine advertisements, I have never liked GoDaddy ads. GoDaddy is a webhosting company that, in my opinion, has always had unethical and downright disgusting advertisements.  Their ads have always been weirdly racy, at least for as long as I can remember. One memorable ad is their 2013 SuperBowl commercial which features a long, passionate, and up close kiss between a swimsuit model and stereotypical nerd. The ad uses inappropriate shock value to generate buzz about the company and demonstrate the contrasting sides of the company. In my opinion, the stereotypes it rested on were ridiculously over the top. The racy ads that this domain hosting company displays are sexist and universally disliked (while this ad did get GoDaddy's name out there, the response was generally negative). Titillation is just not an ethical advertising strategy. Another memorable GoDaddy ad, which was pulled due to criticisms before it even got to the SuperBowl, was one of a lost puppy that had been thrown out of a truck. The puppy finally makes it home to what we think is a loving owner, since she expresses her concern that she had when the dog was missing, only to finish "I'm so glad you're alright" with "because I just sold you on this website that I built with GoDaddy." This ad is offensive in a different way. While it was supposed to be making fun of other puppy ads like Budweiser's lost puppy who is rescued by his horse friends, this one is offensive to all moral animal lovers. Anyone who sells animals and ships them out to be bought the next day is practicing inhumane breeding and just displaying an overall lack of care for the living creature. GoDaddy capitalizes on arousal and what they believe to be humor in order to sell their service, when, in my opinion, all they're actually doing is perpetuating stereotypes, showing inappropriate and non relevant commercials, and creating an immoral reputation for themselves.

Kissing ad
Puppy ad

My least favourite advertisement

Though I am usually not deeply affected by advertisements, the advertisements created by the "fairness" cream industry in India bother me due to various reasons. Although the fixation with fair and light complexion is becoming less obvious now, I remember it being a major part of advertisements when I was growing up. The commercials though, still existent are a lot less blatant than they were back in the day. These advertisements mainly sold "skin-lightening" products, aimed towards "dark-skinned" and "dusky" Indian girls. They did so by placing these women in scenarios wherein they would face problems during job interviews, getting married and even being victims of sexism by their own families in some cases just because they were "dark-skinned" and therefore, less confident. Then the commercial would show the girl using a cream called "Fair and Lovely", which apparently lightened her complexion over a span of certain weeks. This in turn made her popular, confident and of course got her the job as well as acceptance from the society. The idea that having a lighter complexion is indicative of talent or confidence is a running theme in most of these advertisements. Since a high percentage of Indian marriages are arranged, it is almost like a marriage between the families of the boy and the girl. One of the unsaid "requirements" of the girl from the boy's side of the family is that of fairness. Even within families, mothers express grave concerns if their daughters' face is blemished or their skin tone darkens due to tanning or something. Though it sounds bizarre, this concept is so normal in India that people have accepted it as something that just happens. However, some of these ads have now been banned by the Advertising Standards Council of India as they were blatantly propagating very inappropriate stereotypes. Some of the fairness creams even came with  a scale of different skin colours from darkest to lightest, so one could keep track of how "effective" the cream was. Such advertisements, in my opinion, are worse than advertisements in general because they openly attack women and make claims which end up with women questioning their self-confidence and doubting their abilities.

This is an old print ad of the same cream which made such commercials. 

Wynwood Walls Graffiti Lecture from Stamps

Hello all! Here is the link to the graffiti lecture I was talking about in class. It is really interesting and displays some very diverse ways of looking at and creating street art. Check it out if you have some time to kill!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5YMjZHTzgk&feature=youtu.be

This weeks readings

After reading this weeks readings, I was extremely interested in the topic presented. In high school I took a class called Media in Society that talked a lot about advertisements and technology in our society. One cool thing I learned was that advertisements are sometimes subtle and we do not even recognize them as ads. For example, Starbucks use to give people free drinks as long as they drank their drink (which had the Starbucks logo on the cup) in a public place thats near one of their stores. To us this looks like a normal person walking while drinking coffee but really that person was placed their so we subconsciously notice the Starbucks logo. This is one of the many ways advertisements work without us knowing. In the readings gender played a very prominent role. While it is clear that women being used as object to fulfill certain fantasies of both men and other women, the role of men was not discussed as much. It is terrible how women are sexualized and looked at as props in ads but men are being hindered by this industry as well. They are constantly told to be masculine and drink beer and think of women as objects not people. They struggle to be "manly" just how women struggle to not be silenced. I would be interested in seeing what other people have to say about gender being used in advertisements because, unfortunately, it makes sense why companies do what they do, but does this mean it is ethical?

Detroit Trip

I was super excited about our field trip to Detroit, but I didn't really know what to expect going into it. The trip changed my perspective on tags. Before the trip, I considered the more "masterful" works of graffiti, or the ones that look more like murals to be art, whereas the tags were simply vandalism. However, our trip to Detroit made me change my mind. I saw many examples of tags that were beautifully and thoughtfully created into these elaborate pieces, and I also saw simple signatures that I now consider to be artistic practice pieces as opposed to vandalism meant to deface public property. 

I loved walking around the different areas of Detroit- Lincoln Street Park and the Eastern Market, and seeing how all of these different artists leave their mark on their city. It was fascinating for me to see the culmination of the different works, and to me these graffiti-filled areas exhibit a sense of community. The colors are vibrant and the pieces add to the feeling of energy that radiates throughout the city. 

I also really enjoyed our visit to the DIA. I wandered off by myself to explore some of the pieces in the contemporary gallery. One thing that really struck me was how some of these artworks were reminiscent of the works of graffiti that we had just witnessed. I loved being able to explore the parallels between the two different types of artwork. All in all, I learned a lot about modern art, graffiti, my opinions on graffiti, and the city of Detroit. This trip definitely made me want to go back and explore Detroit again!

Different Perspective on Graffiti

Despite having read numerous reading on describing and analyzing art and having written several museum reports and art-related essays, I’ve never encounter any reading or writing on what is arguably the relevant form of visual art to our world today. Perhaps this is the case due to how powerful institutions in our society (i.e. those involving public safety and the law) tend to view graffiti as vandalism with sinister motives towards the public. Admittedly, a few weeks ago I would’ve told you that while I see the artistry in graffiti, overall I see it as a negative thing. However, after the recent homework readings on the topic as well as the recent trip to Detroit, my opinion of it has transformed entirely. While there is graffiti that aims to merely vandalize, in general, the graffiti artists of our time seek to use their medium to create a public dialogue in the best way they can — through art. Because graffiti interrupts public spaces, it aggressively demands to be seen and thus affirms its place in society as a relevant, timely artform. Yes, graffiti is a questionable use of visual art, but if you think about it, every art movement was controversial in its historical context. During the trip, FEL3000ft referred to the current state of graffiti as a “Renaissance” — a brand new and revolutionary movement in the world of visual art. Hearing his perspective on graffiti, especially in Detroit, and seeing the beautiful murals throughout a city that would’ve otherwise been in ruins made me appreciate graffiti in a whole different light, and relate the struggles of street artists to those of others’ throughout art history.

Trip to Detroit

I really didn't know what to expect on this field trip. Obviously, we were going to analyze graffiti and other art all around the city, but I didn't know how much of the art would impact me as much as it did. Growing up in Michigan, I've been to Detroit many times. But, downtown is a completely different atmosphere compared to the outskirts. When we made our first stop at Lincoln Street Park, I was blown away by how many stories were residing on the walls and grounds of such a quiet place. From Fel's works to the recycled sculptures, seeing it all made me respect the true dedication and time that has been put into this unique and creative environment. I can only imagine that it's similarly respected by the surrounding communities.

As far as the Eastern Market area, I was amazed at how well the murals blended in with the community. Not only did they represent the culture and artistic vision of Detroit, but all of them held messages behind their visual beauty. As we moved down to the bike paths, which were very well-constructed and pleasing to walk on, it was so interesting to see how much graffiti was left on the walls on either sides of them. It is evident that the street art in this area of Detroit is highly respected; there was no apparent sign of removed graffiti, it was simply a part of the bike paths.

Having been to the DIA before, I definitely can say that I appreciated our walk through the streets of Detroit much more. Don't get me wrong, I love the DIA. But, I have never seen murals with such aesthetic pleasure. Between the angel by the food market, the water-crisis response by the back streets, and the colorful tribute to a late artist by the fenced lot, I couldn't get enough of the pure beauty that thrives in this busy area of Detroit.

Even though I took a ton of pictures, every now and then, I made sure to put my camera back in my pocket for a while and just take in all of the sights. Since returning back to campus, I have told multiple friends and family members about some of the amazing things that I got to see in Detroit. I just want to go back and see all of the works that I didn't get a chance to see that day. With that being said, I am very thankful to have gone on such a splendid field trip.

My "Style Wars" Experience

I really enjoyed watching Style Wars for class this week. As the documentary unfolded, it seemed very clear that the graffiti artists were the protagonists: they created meaningful artwork through the outlet of graffiti. Each writer turned to graffiti for his own purpose, whether it was to become famous (or "all-city"), to communicate with other writers, or to see his artwork travel from place to place with the knowledge that he had shared his talent. All of the artists interviewed created fantastic work as well, with captivating colors, amazing three-dimensional effects, and lettering that ranged from fairly legible to completely outlandish. However, around halfway through the film, a new character enters the scene. CAP is the antithesis of the other featured graffiti artists: he paints without passion, only seeing it as a stepping stone to fame; he favors quantity over quality, and exclusively makes throw-ups; and he is a lone wolf who seems to have no respect for his fellow writers. Although I had been rooting for the writers throughout the film, I began to strongly dislike CAP, and found myself heartbroken when he ruined SEEN's elaborate mural with a poorly-drawn tag. Why did he have to paint on others' work when he could just as easily paint somewhere else? If he didn't value other writers' work, how could he possibly value his own?
Soon, I began to consider CAP's actions more deeply within the context of the graffiti debate. I wondered if my feelings about CAP's defacement of SEEN's work was similar to the feelings of the interviewees about graffiti as a whole. If I considered CAP's work to be vandalism, why didn't I see SEEN's work in the same light? Perhaps it was because of the their intentions: SEEN wanted to make something beautiful while spreading his name, while CAP just wanted to write on a wall, and didn't mind undermining another artist's work in the process. But passersby don't see what goes on behind the scenes or how much thought and effort goes into pieces; they only see something that shouldn't be there, a plague to be eradicated, no matter its aesthetic value. While I despised CAP in Style Wars, his presence facilitated deeper thought about how graffiti is created and perceived.  

Feminists Finding a Space

Looking at Allyson Mitchell's analysis of graffiti being a focal point for many feminists and queer women, I was very intrigued at looking at this subculture.  Although I have been desensitized to graffiti in a sense because I have grown up seeing it, I have always witnessed and assumed that the culture around graffiti was dominated by heterosexual men.  It was refreshing to see that the women in Kensington Market created a space to express their identities within being female and being queer, and while doing this, assuring the younger feminists and queer women and girls that there was a community for them and that they were valid.  I also like that, while creating a community for themselves, they made a mark on Kensington Market to let anyone passing by that they simply existed, and had a right to existed.

My New Views on Graffiti

Growing up, I always thought of Graffiti as a violation of space and a gross disruption of community. I always assumed it was associated with some sort of wrongdoing because that's what I was always told. It was never called art when it was referenced to, but that's exactly what it is. Graffiti is as much art as a painting in an art museum. Someone went through the effort to create the piece to make a statement for themselves and others to see, something to call their own as an addition to the area in which it was painted. Graffiti is how an artist chooses to express themselves, and it leaves a huge impact on the community in which it is left. It gets people thinking about whatever the piece is about, whether it is a tag or a mural making a statement about the quality of living.
Both from the documentary "Style Wars" and the talk with Fel 300 ft. about Graffiti I could finally understand why Graffiti artists are motivated to create Graffiti. As I understand, it is to improve on their creative style while providing an outlet for creativity and discontent with the state of an area. For example, the people in Style Wars Graffiti'd train cars because they were plain and boring, and they travelled all around New York City: it was a perfect method to get a message around and fill the space of New York. In the case of Fel and many other artists in Detroit, Graffiti had the huge role of filling empty, somewhat ugly space with something beautiful. Each piece in Detroit has a story and a message, most often that Detroit is more than what people denigrate it for. Graffiti is an amazing style of art, and in the future, I hope to see more of it.

Reflections on the Detroit Field Trip

I think the most exciting thing about the Detroit trip for me was simply going to Detroit. I had never really been to Detroit before. I had also heard countless bad things about Detroit and have pretty much grown up thinking of Detroit as a bad, dangerous place, a place not to go. But, especially after talking a little about the city in our class, I’ve gradually recognized that while bad things may happen in Detroit, that can’t be all Detroit is. I was therefore quite excited to see for myself a bit of what Detroit is actually like. From our trip I got a good impression. I really liked seeing the Eastern Market. I didn’t really know that there was such a big market there and that so many people went, and seeing that made me happy. I also really liked seeing all the street art we looked at. I liked all the colors and the messages the art conveyed, and I liked the prevalence of the art in the city. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’d like to live in Detroit, but now I have actual images from my experience to associate with the word “Detroit,” and they aren’t bad images. I’m glad that I was able to widen my horizons through this field trip and develop a positive image of Detroit.

Blog post #3

Having never been exposed to a lot of street art, Detroit was an eye opener for me. Meeting the artist behind many famous murals and graffiti pieces was one of the highlights though. Fel3000ft's emotion behind his work and the journey that many graffiti writers and artists have gone through made me comprehend the graffiti culture much more than I ever have. What really interested me was the way that he developed from a kid with some cans of paint to a renowned muralist that gets to do paid commissions. Every kid whose graffiti and tags we may perceive as 'unsightly' now, has the potential to really make a difference, and progress farther than they could've ever imagined.
Graffiti is although undoubtedly still a controversial subject for me, I wouldn't like to imagine a world without people being able to 'interrupt' public space. We want to be heard, we want to provoke thought, and we want to feel pride in ourselves. Although the line is thin (often, invisible) between vandalism and art in this culture, it's ability to provoke dialogue and create movements is of much more importance. It's affect on people, whether it be the writer or the viewer, is immense. It provides people with a certain comfort of belonging and being seen, in a world which is so otherwise occupied and pays no heed.

Blog Post #3

Monday's trip to Detroit opened up my eyes up to graffiti. For the first time, I saw this form of vandalism in a new light, with a different perspective along with a deep appreciation. When analyzing the murals on the graffiti walls, I was not just looking at colorful paintings, scribbled names, or landscapes of cities. I was looking at art. Each piece told its own story, each one different from the next. Each possessed a voice, a meaning, a message. Each struck me with a different sentiment, a different emotion. In fact, I was especially captivated by the mural, “Dear Dad.” A small boy with a sullen countenance crouches in the corner, his knees drawn up to his chest, his shoulders hunched, his eye wide open and weary. In his hand, he holds a paper airplane, which we will soon learn carries not just the weight of the grief he bears for his deceased father but also the legacy of that grief as he grows into a man. The central aspect of this mural is the handwritten letter this child wrote to his father. Black ink on a white lined paper contrasts the rays and flashes of bright colors whipping past. Within the letter, the individual words which form together to create the full message illicit deep emotion and carry a heavy weight – true grief, true longing, true desire to please. From analyzing the overall beautiful piece of art, I was intrigued by the colors, the vivid details, the letter, the transformation internally of the boy, and the overall deep emotion. In fact, I realized that although this mural seems to suggest a portrait of a grieving child’s communication to a deceased father, with a longer appraisal, it becomes apparent that this work is simultaneously expressing how the adult artist thinks about his father who died years ago. I found it interesting how the artist himself is present in his own work. His voice speaks through, relating himself to the boy, his life to the boy’s life.

Blog Post #3

      While talking to Fel3000ft, I felt conflicted. Whenever I look at graffiti, or street art, there is always a line that I draw in my head. I can never appreciate the art in its full beauty until I establish that the graffiti does not cross that line: the line between vandalism and art. The reason I felt conflicted was because, while listening to him, I realized that Fel3000ft's line lies in a very different place to mine. However, although I felt conflicted, I did not feel uncomfortable. This is probably because I'm not exactly sure where my line lies. Fel3000ft told us that if someone paints on a building, which is an eyesore but technically owned by someone, the artist is merely making it better. It has almost been a week since Fel3000ft said that to us, and I'm still not sure whether or not I agree. While I completely understand and do not even entirely oppose his perspective, I have to ask myself: what if I were the owner of that building? What if a graffiti artist were to make social commentary on my building, and I happened to be extremely offended by that social commentary? This was not the only thing that Fel3000ft said that struck me. He also mentioned that if Detroit were to outlaw all street art tomorrow and harshly enforce that decree, he would use his voice in its full power. He described his voice as something almost dormant, which he has used in the past; if he needs to do so, he will reactivate it. It is interesting to me that one can harbor such a voice but use it selectively. In what scenarios would he use it? On what piece did he last use it in its full power? Overall, Saturday's trip, especially the graffiti tour, was extremely thought provoking, and I know that I will continue to ponder it for at least the remainder of the semester.

Blog Post #3

Looking back at last week's discussions regarding graffiti as well as our Detroit field trip, I have realized that my opinion on graffiti has taken a more definitive form than before. While I was seeing all the mesmerizing graffiti and murals in and around Eastern Market and the Art Park, I never associated any of it with "vandalism" or let alone anything negative. In fact, I couldn't stop thinking about how easily and fluidly the artworks integrated with the city. It felt like walking in a world where the walls spoke to you, told you their stories and reached out to you. It was an ethereal feeling because the various murals and artworks seemed to envelope me wholly, truly seeking my attention and initiating dialogue in my head. The diversity of themes, artistic styles and social messages associated with each work was the key highlight of the trip for me. Maybe it is because I am an artist that I tend to think that graffiti is not a form of vandalism at all, but I know for a fact that this viewpoint has been developing quite strongly in my head. At the same time, it is interesting to note the perspective of the other side, like that of the officials and people in authority, who view graffiti with almost disgust. This comes up quite frequently in Style Wars, which I thoroughly enjoyed watching. The Mayor goes as far as to say that all the recent graffiti in NYC is "destroying lifestyle" and something along the lines of how it is becoming "difficult to enjoy life" due to it. The documentary does a great job of fluctuating between different perspectives and thoughts on graffiti. I feel that this issue is definitely a two-sided one, but lately I am finding myself more and more on the side which believes that graffiti is simply an expression of creativity and art, which can serve much purpose. 

Graffiti Field Trip

Our trip to the Lincoln Street Art Park on Saturday truly influenced the way I see graffiti. My whole life I have lived in Chicago where majority of graffiti (in my area) consists of tags on peoples homes.
In my mind, before taking this class, this was considered vandalism. After visiting Detroit for the first time, and specifically the Art Park, my eyes were open. Not only because the graffiti was more than just small tags, but because Fel3000 shared his love and reason for bing a graffiti artist. He made the art on the city walls more than just something for my eye to look at. He explained the purpose and meaning of a few of his pieces and I slowly gathered that each piece of graffiti, no matter a small tag or a large mural, has a story. Right when we got to the Art Park the letter to a father is the first thing that caught my eye. I could not look away. Later I learned that Fel was the creator of this masterpiece. Furthermore, I noticed the two other parts connected to this letter. Starting with the boys face, then to his hand starting to write the letter, and ending with the finished letter to his father. Fel told me he created this piece to show the emotional connection he has with Detroit and the Art Park. But in return, this project took an emotional toll on him. During the final days of work, Fel's son came out to help finish the mural. This cyclical event honoring Fel's father really struck him with an overwhelming sense of emotion. Hearing this story, I learned something I would have never known without talking to Fel. He showed me that graffiti is not just a quick act of art but rather a story that the artist projects onto the city.

Post #3- Emma Yergin

I've been to Detroit hundreds of times, whether it be to go to a Tigers' game, go out to eat, visit the DIA, or even go to Eastern Market, but I've never taken the time to explore the street art, so I'm so glad that I got the chance to do that this past weekend with the class. I've never been one to advocate for or against or even really have a strong opinion about graffiti because I've just never been too interested in scribbles on walls that I can't even begin to decipher. I was a little apprehensive, because of this, going into Detroit solely to look at graffiti. However, I eventually came to understand that sometimes it's okay not to understand. The murals were impressive and gorgeous and even the throw ups and tags were impressive to me once I adopted this mindset of "don't try to understand, just appreciate it." I also really loved getting the chance to hear Fel3000Feet talk about his work with graffiti because it puts a face behind the art. Besides that, and perhaps more importantly, by speaking to us about why he felt graffiti was important, he injected emotion into not just his work, but all graffiti that we saw that day. I'm realizing that the adoration that all of these artists must feel for the art of graffiti must be so immense because by using the city as their canvas, they are taking the chance that their masterpieces will be destroyed sooner than not. Still, they love to create the graffiti so much that they ignore this and paint anyways. I love this passion. My favorite quote has always been, 'Be fearless in the pursuit of what sets your soul on fire,' and I think that really connects with the passion that graffiti artists feel. In making their mark on the city, they are fearless in the face of the possibility of getting in trouble and having their work destroyed. Honestly, in terms of passion, we could all be a little more like graffiti artists.

Graffiti

 In our society, there is a constant debate over whether graffiti is art or vandalism, but I believe it is arguably both in a good way. Art can also be vandalism, and, in fact, it probably ought to be if it too is acknowledged as art at all. To me, art shouldn’t just refer to one’s creative talent for rendering something visually stimulating but it should also provoke its admirers and make them question things that they otherwise wouldn’t have questioned. Similar to the idea of the first essay of the semester, I personally believe that art should show more than what is on the surface and reveal far more than what is easily observable to the common person. That being said, there is a fine line between vandalizing just to vandalize and vandalizing to make an artistic statement. I’m excited to see what kinds of graffiti we see in Detroit on the field trip this upcoming week.

Graffiti

What do I think about graffiti? Well, for starters, I've discovered that graffiti is more complicated than I initially thought. When I think about graffiti, the first image that pops into my mind is spray-painted tags on the side of a building or train-car. I do not necessarily like this image because I associate these tags with vandalism and the destruction of property. Although these are the images that I initially associate with graffiti, I do believe that there is another side. Graffiti can be considered a form of art. I have seen some pieces of graffiti that are absolutely incredible to look at. In places such as 5 Pointz in New York City and The Wynwood Walls in Miami, there are works of graffiti that display mind-blowing artistic talent.
The question of whether or not graffiti is art or vandalism is a tricky one. How do we determine this? Does the location of the piece matter (whether it is in a public or private area, or a low-income or high-income neighborhood)? Does it matter if the piece was created by a well-known person such as Banksy, or if it was created by a less well-known or unknown person? Do we determine if something is graffiti based on the quality of the piece? How do we truly judge quality? These are all questions that I ask myself when contemplating the subject of graffiti. I do not know the answers to these questions yet, but I am hoping that our trip to Detroit and further exploration of these questions in the school of art and design will help me determine my opinion.