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.
I, too, did not like CAP in style wars, but I didn't ever think about him in the way you've described him here. I really like your idea that our perception of his graffiti as out of place parallels the general public's perception that all graffiti is out of place, because we don't understand the motives behind it. Thanks for the insight!
ReplyDelete