What is Graffiti? Why do we do it?

A couple of year's ago a small Cincinnati zine called "Union Terminal" published an article about how some tags on an indian restaurant's walls had cost the owners all this money and how tags and "ugly" graffiti were an all around bad idea. The zine was bombarded with letters and two of them were published on the next issue. This is one of them. We really encourage you to read it. We suggest you print it. It is very well written and it hits pretty close to how we feel about graff. It was written annonimously by a writter in Columbus. Read on.

I will try to organize my thoughts the best I can. Some may seem out of order or repeated a hundred times due to rambling. If this happens just laugh and keep reading. Where to start? Ok, I will describe your article as an attack on graffiti, which is what I think it is. Here is why. I know you probably think that you are a supporter of graffiti because you approve of what you call "good" graffiti but I think you are wrong. I am assuming that by "good" graffiti you mean pieces or productions that are hidden away from the public or perhaps on legal walls; huge murals with twenty colors and characters and backgrounds and all that good stuff. Well how nice of you to accept the aspect of graffiti that is closest to traditional artwork and what most people would approve of. Do I think that nice pieces and productions on legal walls are not real graffiti? No, it is, BUT; get ready to roll your eyes; to me it is the same as a tag. There is nothing different about the two, only that one took longer to do and looks "nicer" to the general public. But in essence they are the same. A huge piece is just a name on a wall. A tag is a name on the wall, its the same thing, I just think you have been trained to disagree. That's right, trained. How do you know that if you had not been taught (indirectly through whatever means) that graffiti is bad and even ugly, that you would think that it is bad and ugly. Is a tag really ugly or do you just think that automatically because that is what have been taught. Taught something along the line of: "graffiti is the work of people that are bad, and criminals who don't respect where they live." This is what you may think because this is what you have been taught and this is the attitude that people like you and your zine continue to perpetuate. If some one reads your article and reads "tags are ugly and unartful and the work of "bored fuckheads" as you call them, they may think just that the next time they see a tag. I know you are probably thinking "someone doesn't have to read my zine to think a tag is shitty", no maybe not, but it helps keep that way of thinking going, which I guess is good for you because you subscribe to such a mentality. This is an attitude sealed by blank walls. We live in a boring blankwall society, everything must be "neat" and "clean" for people like you who have a problem with a name on a wall. Why can't there be a name on a wall, why do people need to think it is ugly and spend money getting rid of it? What I find funny is when I ask anti-grattiti people why a tag is ugly to them, they just look at me like I crazy for even suggesting the fact that it isn't, I get a roll of the eyes and a "you have got to be kidding", but then they can't answer me, they just say "it looks ugly", "why?" I ask. "It just does" they respond, as if the fact that a tag is ugly is a given thing. Just curious, but what exactly makes a tag ugly to you? And talking about being trained to see things as ugly, we are trained to look at human beings-in the same way. Look at the way most of us as people see people who weigh more than average. We are taught that this is ugly and something that is wrong and does not belong, we are taught that being overweight is something that we need to buff (diets), we are taught the same about tags and graffiti. I like how you end your article spurting off about how the tags just "sucked" (balls was it), your "ya know they weren't even good, they just sucked" attitude. Was this suppose to back up your argument, that they weren't even "good" in the first place, meaning this was all the more reason it was shity they were put up. I'm sorry but this seems like a pretty fucked up way of thinking. The fact that you find something ugly should not have any effect on weather it should be allowed to exist or not. I mean that is what you are saying isn't it? That you and a whole load of people find tags ugly, therefore they don't belong on walls. Maybe if I want to express myself with some paint on a wall I should ask you if you think it's ugly then I can decided weather to put it up or not. I am not saying you are wrong if you really do think a tag is ugly but I do think you are wrong if you tell people they shouldn't do it, because you think it's ugly. The fact that it is ugly is only your opinion. The person who put the tag up is representing himself, his style, and where he is in the world, and for you to say he shouldn't exist (on a wall) because you don't like the way he looks (on a wall) is fucked up. A tag you think is ugly is erased from a wall. Should a person you feel is ugly be erased, should someone saying something you think is ugly be erased by being silenced. This way of thinking, buffing what we don't like or find ugly and trying to restore your comfortable blank wall way of thinking is anti expressionist and anti-human and I think it sucks (not balls though). Wait it gets more ridiculous.

"Graffiti isn't corporate so it gets no respect, hasn't made a billion dollars for some corporation yet." -KRS one.

What bothers me the most about your article is that is seems to talk about graffiti as how it relates to money, that is, it is bad because it costs people money to remove and takes away from profits of a business that has become a target of graffiti. Your claiming that graffiti causes all these poor people to pay for it's removal and that it hurts business right? Why? Why do it need to be removed, and why does it hurt business? It may hurt business and push some out of areas with graffiti because of the attitudes that people like you perpetuate. That is, that it is ugly and does not belong there. How nice of you to decide what belongs where. Talk about class issues, where does graffiti belong?, in the slums? Not that your saying that but do you think if people saw graffiti in the ghetto they would care, no, they would expect it. But when it pops up in richer areas like the one I am assuming surrounds the University of Cincinnati all of a sudden it's a problem. You talk in your article about how graffiti costs all this money, and prices go up and taxpayers are the ones hurt. What proof do you have that money saved from graffiti will be spent on anything else than fatcat lobbyist greed! What proof do you have that it really has that much of an effect on anything at all. Graffiti removal is expensive but it doesn't have to be removed and as far as raising prices and causing other costs what proof do you have? Have you done research on how much businesses are effected by graffiti or is just your hunch. Have you gone into your friends Indian restaurant and asked her how much business she has lost because her store was tagged. Our society tries it's damnedest to remove "ugly" things that do not "belong" and make people uncomfortable and "hurt" business. A classic example is the war on the homeless population. Same as the war on graffiti. It is antihuman. A homeless person is unfortunately to many (whether they care to recognize it or not) an ugly blight on a city street. They don't "belong" there lying on the street with the way they "look". They "hurt" business, a store or restaurant with a homeless person in front may see a drop in business because they are there. People feel uncomfortable with them around, they don't want to look at them. The store may have to pay to "remove" the problem (rent-a-pigs telling them to take a walk). Should a homeless person be metaphoricly "buffed" because people don't like the way they look and they hurt business? Please don't say, "you cant compare a homeless person to a tag" well, I just did and in this situation I think it is the same. It is not the person who is homeless or the tag that causes problems, it is the ignorant attitudes of those who continue to see them as ugly who actually make the problems. So you see, its all your fault. No, I'm not just saying that either, but I hope you can understand where I am coming from. Oh yeah, more about this blank wall thing. Just why do people like you prefer them. Tradition no doubt, walls have always been blank, that's how they look "good" and "nice" and "clean". If I let traditional thought limit my way of thinking I would say blacks are inferior, women belong in the kitchen, gay people are sick sinners, and of corse, animals are ours to eat an mistreat, and yes, graffiti is ugly! Wow let's parallel this shit with people again. Those in power sure like their blank walls, they like their people blank too. All the same, miles and miles of blank grey walls, all the same, not one should stick out. A tag on a blank wall is a person asking a question, challenging the powers that be, and we know those in power don't want that, they want us to remain blank walls so they can continue to run things and fill their pockets. Well the same attitude is expressed towards people, we should all be the same, grey and boring. God forbid there should be any differences seen between us. Keeping walls blank and free of expression is the same thing as keeping people blank and free of expression. In Cleveland, the RTA has the rapid transit train lines to downtown from the suburbs. For the longest time all the miles and miles of grey walls that lined the tracks were covered with graffiti murals, (see your definition of "good" graffiti). Lately some insane stuff has popped up, beautiful pictures of planes and characters galore and all kinds of shit has been being put up. So a few months ago the city of Cleveland started a graff task force to remove these murals God forbid train riders should have anything to look at besides blank grey walls. Maybe all the commuters would become inspired and quit their jobs. We can't let people get inspired, no, no, we need them to be thinking about money and how their lives suck. I know you, being an advocate for "good" graffiti, would frown on this action but it is the same attitude and mentality in my mind that is responsible for removing tags. Fuck blank walls and keeping people blank and boring.

Graffiti also defys the question of property and ownership. When europeans came gallivanting over to the americas back in the day, they tried to make land deals with the Indian's, saying "we will own this", "you will own that", "we will give you this much money for your land". The Indians were baffled because they were like, "we don't own the land, we don't own the trees, streams, air and animals that surround us, we live among it, we do not possess it". I walk through the city where I live and I see people with buildings on land that someone "owns", what the fuck, how can someone own land?, and because I live in the city of Columbus I have just as much right to every inch of property as anyone else, regardless of money or ownership. Where I live is mine to do with as I choose, I can decorate it with my tag or throw up or piece or what ever. If someone (like you) continues to want to live in a city with blank walls then it looks like you're gonna have to pay for it. If a store owner doesn't like a tag, then they'll have to pay to remove it. Let me add that I think tagging houses is somewhat of a different story because in a fucked up system where rich people and corporations own city-blocks a persons house that they own is an impowering thing, I myself respect that. People always complain to me about people tagging houses and I don't really see it happening that much. All the writers I know wouldn't do it but there are always those who want to get up everywhere they can. I don't condone it but I'm not really against it. I guess they only thing is that houses are more private and city streets are all of ours to share, including the walls that line them.

Graffiti is putting your name and representing your self as a person in a public place. I would guess you would call this need for representation being "out for fame", I hear graffiti writers themselves utter this phrase and I think it is shallow minded bullshit. Graffiti is a representation and an expression of a person who is alive. I live in this world therefore I have the right to express my self anywhere I want. That's right, tagging is saying here I am I exist and I am important enough just in the fact that I am a human being to have my name on every street corner if I choose. You talk about how graffiti is a class issue. You could not be any more correct! We live in a world where money talks, and is a guarenteed way of being noticed and acknowledged, graffiti seeks to destroy this. Graffiti is saying just because I don't have a million dollars I am still important because I am a person who is alive in this world. Drive down the freeway, after driving a few miles you can see the path of corporate bombing. That's right, if your a billion dollar company you can put a billboard every ten miles cause you have the loot to do it and it stays up. Here I am with my can in hand out to put my name on the highway, why should I not be able to represent myself every ten miles? Is a fucking corporate billboard with an advertisement for a $2.99 meal deal from Wendy's more important than me as a person, just because I don't have a billion dollars? Fuck no! I have just as much right as they do to put my name up, if you or anyone else says differently that is straight up classism. Yeah my tag may not be advertising gasoline or whatever so you maybe thinking why do I need to put it up, because I am fucking advertising myself and my existance. I am important as a person and I will represent my self as a human being and to me that is what my tag does. A tag is not a question of art. It is not for you to look at and say "that is not artistic, it's just a scibble or a name", that is irrelevent to the whole point of a tag. A tag is a name, a piece is a name, a production is a name, an expression and represtetaion of a human being, if it is put up simply printed, in a matter of seconds, or if it takes three days of painstaking work, it is the same thing just a name.

Well that's all I'm gonna try and say, hopefully you can agree with some of points or at least see where I am coming from. You or all the police and legislation in the world can never stop graffiti, it will continue no matter what. I am saying this to be realistic not egotistic. Us writers aren't dying, we're multiplying.