Graffiti Art: The Vandal's Voice
Chris Vamos

“Art has been saying with more and more intensity: the nature of the painting has become less interesting than the nature of the relation of painting to society.”

                                    - Norman Mailer, The Faith of Graffiti (15)¹

            At the base of human creativity, conflict exists.  The human race derives incredible power from the creative instinct, and has leveraged said power into success as a species.  Yet the creative instinct is the most controversial and vague of all the instincts.  Initially, one might err in assuming that those instincts which do not require interpretation reveal more about inherent human character.  Indeed, it is counter-intuitive to think that complex instincts such as creativity, that are subjects of such persistent and fervent debate, reveal anything more than the “intellectual fog,” the unfortunate side-effect of rational thought.  But upon analysis, one sees that all the higher functions (heretofore defined as those functions that illicit progression rather than mere sustainment) are the product of multiple, equally viable decision paths.

            Let us observe an example illustrative of this point.  Caveman John is hungry.  In turn, he must eat in order to survive, and the branches of the decision making tree end there.  John's hunger is a prime example of a reaction to a stimulus that does not require interpretation, it is either done or not done.  After John's meal, he is satisfied, yet he is right back where he started.  We can conclude that John's hunger, being a reaction to a state of undernourishment, serves to sustain his life.

            John's life is complicated by reactions which evade immediate decision.  For example, what, and more importantly, how, will he eat tomorrow?  Since physically the odds are so stacked against him in the natural world, John must use his all his cunning to make up for his shortcomings.  John is highly conflicted; should he create a weapon, or perhaps a trap?  Should he sample the foliage and check which plants are edible?  Should he begin farming some local crop?  And even when he finally decides how he should eat, the decision presents him with an entirely new set of questions.  Which option would present the most beneficial outcome?  John presents himself with the above options as a result of the creative instinct, which paradoxically exists both to create and to resolve conflict.

            Both the processes and outcomes of the creative process are highly indicative of the nature and character of the individual.  Creativity itself is the mother of infinite interpretations, leading invariably to infinite conflictions, and thus has the greatest potential of all the instincts to reveal the nature of the individual to the society at large.  The most conspicuous incarnation of potential is apparent through the sheer variety of art, specifically visual art.

            Disagreements with previous schools of thought have been universal to all art movements, ranging from minor quarrels to out-and-out rejection.  The painting, the sculpture, and more recently the photograph and the film are all physical representations of the infinite branches of the decision tree, each artist choosing and adhering to their own interpretation, none more right or wrong than the other.  Recently though, an art movement has entered the public consciousness which represents such a shift in thinking that it wholly eschews social convention, likening itself subconsciously to the rebellious artists of the Renaissance.  This art movement is, of course, Graffiti.  Being unlike anything the world had seen in a very long time, Graffiti is outlawed both in conventional society and in the art world, subjugating it as childish and obscene.  But the Graffiti movement, so wonderfully naïve and unjaded, lives outside of social convention and the rules and regulations of the “gallery art” world.  World renowned Graffiti artist Shok I recalls “[...] I think [graffiti writers] achieved the impossible by simply not knowing that they couldn't” SHOK I)².  The fact that society so ostracizes Graffiti art lends it a sense of urgency and defiance, fueling the artists who brashly etch their name above the city in six-foot-high letters.  However, without the constant push and pull between Graffiti artists and the confines of the law, Graffiti would fall flat on its face and cease to bear any significant meaning.  Yet due to its illegality there is great hidden meaning behind Graffiti art which allows it to remain vital.  Otherwise, Graffiti art's meaning would otherwise be invisible but to the informed.  As such, just as all previous art movements have done, the message and meaning behind Graffiti is a function of the conflict between artists and social standards, and thus the illegality of Graffiti legitimizes it as an art form.      

            As an expression of creativity, art is necessarily derived from conflict.  Yet unlike so-called gallery art, public art requires confrontation by its very nature, which naturally leads to clashing opinions and the amplification thereof.  This public confrontation means that artists who paint in public places are hard-pressed to control their audiences' reactions.  Graffiti artists in particular occupy a unique niche in the public art community.  “Rather than forcing their art on helpless victims, then, graffiti writers in fact produce art in and of the urban community,” postulates Jeff Ferrell in his book Crimes of Style.  “This graffiti art is vulnerable to direct public response in ways that city administered 'public' art is not. [...] [Graffiti artists] own and control their throw ups and pieces less than they simply expose them to public appreciation (or condemnation)” (Ferrell 174)³.  Conversely, a show at an art museum caters to a very specific audience.  The artist is generally assured that in a gallery setting, even in the eyes of a critic, the artist and the public share a mutual understanding: that the artist is showing art, and the public is viewing art.  More often than not,  animosity towards Graffiti art is linked to its most basic nature, that is is so public and thus confrontation is inevitable.  It follows logically that art which is inescapable requires reaction, be it positive or negative.

            Francisco Goya, famous Spanish painter and revolutionary, fell victim to the public nature of his own paintings.  After a self-imposed exile to France (a response to the acquisition of Spain by Napoleon Bonaparte), “Goya otherwise celebrated his rescue from the jaws of death by decorating the walls of his villa, the Quinta del Sordo, with the fourteen 'black paintings,' which by and large are the most sickening images he ever painted. Having survived, he not only gave himself to realizing hellish visions, but chose to do so in a form that left him surrounded by them (and without the freedom canvases would have offered to turn their faces to the wall)” (Sylvester)⁴.  Goya's self-inflicted madness serves to illustrate the conflict that exists between the art creator and the art viewer (especially in the public forum), where opinions clash.  Yet, as outlines above, this clash of opinion to opinion is inherently necessary to the creative process.

            Graffiti art has been met with continuing opposition, much like all art movements met initial skepticism and even resistance which have since been accepted as legitimate.  Dadaism, an art movement meant to destroy the very concept of art, failed paradoxically in that it became, through the course of time, accepted by the art community as a legitimate art form (particularly during its rediscovery in the late 1960's).  Even Dadaism, so squarely based in anti-art ideology, bore familiar semblances to previous art movements.  Much like the Impressionists or the Mannerists, the Dadaists were unhappy with the current artistic norm as an expressive medium, and “[t]hrough this rejection of traditional culture and aesthetics they hoped to destroy traditional culture and aesthetics” (Wikipedia)⁵.  Without meaning to, the Dadaists, by acknowledging their predecessors and rejecting their interpretations, had taken the first steps towards becoming a legitimate art form.

            In the early days, Graffiti itself met harsh criticisms in the art world.  Keith Haring, the poster boy of art dealers pushing for the acceptance of Graffiti as legitimate art, suffered the brunt of anti-Graffiti criticism in the 1980's.  One critic in New York wrote, “One realizes where a New York graffiti artist like the fulsomely promoted Keith Haring, 25 'the Peter Max of the subways' filched his ideas, a decade later.  Penck's paintings consist of stick figures and linear signs, enacting parodies of myth, ritual and archaic language” (Time Magazine)⁶, speaking of famed German Expressionist A.R. Penck.  This criticism may seem harsh, yet it is apparent that even in the early days of graffiti, critics subconsciously drew parallels between Graffiti and other “accepted” art forms.  Graffiti was already on its way to becoming accepted by the art community.  Yet Graffiti continues to be widely misunderstood, and indeed the public has become increasingly vitriolic – and in turn legislation more severe – as time passes.  To the public, meaningless scribbles on walls represent  solely destruction and malice.  But to understand why the writers write, and hence why there exists tremendous conflict between graffiti writers and the general public, is to understand where the message is confronted in Graffiti art.

            While all previous art movements have confronted conflict via imagery, Graffiti is unique in that the entirety of the message is portrayed through the action, and thus has evaded widespread public acceptance.  This is propagated by the fact that it is generally agreed upon in the graffiti community that true Graffiti art is, by nature of its own connotations, illegal.  The illegality of Graffiti has allowed Graffiti to move from the personal to the political, granting it a voice never conceived of by traditional gallery artists.  Graffiti artist Shmoo tells Art Crimes, an online Graffiti database, that “Graffiti is meant to be a public display. When it is illegal it is a political statement, whether the kid knows it (sic) or not” (Shmoo)⁷.  Graffiti artist Pone lashes out upon artists who shy away from illegal work, opting instead to paint commissioned works, stating in his plain vernacular, “About legal painting I say this: Guys that do legal walls SUCK!!!! Legal is not graffiti anymore. Graffiti itself in its original form IS graffiti, and nothing else” (Pone)⁸.  But Graffiti writers know that by the very nature of it being illegal, Graffiti inevitably will be painted over or removed by the city, which Graffiti writers refer to disdainfully as “the buff.”  Bearing this universal attitude, Graffiti writers accept the fleeting nature of their physical work and instead take great pride and enjoyment out of the process of creation, placing great emphasis on the meaning behind their work to make up for its fragility.  Shmoo shared his thoughts on “the buff” later in the same interview with Art Crimes: “When you become a writer, you know that your stuff won't last forever. It is just accepted that either society won't allow it, or other writers won't. Battling and competition have been a part of graf since its inception. The biggest part of graf is in the doing of it. The action of putting your expression on a wall for other people to see is what             writing is all about. On the same note, graffiti is a temporary art form, like improvisational theatre. [...]  [Y]ou know that your piece soon will be gone” (Shmoo)⁹.

            Many Graffiti artists, knowing full well that the visual end-products of their craft will never be accepted on the same level as the past masterworks, see the message behind their craft as their art, evolving the meaning of art itself to fit their needs, reinventing while transcending.  Crispin Sartwell, in an editorial on Graffiti in Los Angeles, stated,  “Art is process.  Or, to give you a more official definition, a work of art is the product of a process engaged in for its own sake, and not merely for the sake of the product.  Art is immersion in making [...].  If you want to know whether something is art, and, if so, what sort of art it is, then you have to focus on the process that leads up to what you see”  (Sartwell)¹⁰.  Graffiti artists, taking great pride in their work, generally take solace from the disdain of the public in the form of “crews,” small group of Graffiti artists who operate much like the artist communes of New York of the 1960's and 1970's.  These groups serve to uplift other writers in the group; they share their experience such as to heighten their satisfaction.  “Most writers paint for the sake of painting for themselves,” says Graffiti artist Sir Delux in an interview, “and other graffiti writers, with a few peers mixed in. I think this attitude is common in the graffiti world. There are writers who are a lot better than me that make little to no effort to share their work with the public, beyond initially creating it. They do it purely for the experience” (Sir Delux)¹¹.  Sir Delux is not alone; thousands of writing crews across the world share and develop their craft outside of the bounds of societal standards, appreciating Graffiti and exalting it.  The crews are both a great boon to the Graffiti community and an unfortunate necessity, as the vast majority of the public continues to view graffiti in a negative light.  While the message behind Graffiti is understood in small circles, society at large continues to struggle to find meaning deeper than that of malice.  Even further, some argue that Graffiti art is the first step in a direction towards art that “can only be experienced within the psyche” (Mailer 15)¹², becoming a wholly singular experience in which the artist himself becomes the medium of expression.

            Yet many argue that simply by nature of Graffiti being so public, the art necessarily has a special bond with its viewer.  The fact that Graffiti art does not require a gallery or an admission ticket or even a bus ride puts it in a special position to communicate to the community, “[s]o lots of other people can be informed about issues that are important through graffiti. Graffiti doesn't spell out crime or drugs, it spells out that the artist is one of them, in the street and real. Dealing with the same things the viewer deals with” (Swatch1)¹³.  The “real” nature of Graffiti art, as it speaks directly to members of the community about the Graffiti writers experience, is important in understanding the message behind graffiti, and in turn its legitimacy as an art form.

            As the visual voice of a generation of young people, Graffiti is an expression of the perceived disenfranchisement of urban minority youth, and the relationship between the individual and society.  As such, the illegal act of creating Graffiti art is almost uniformly the product of frustration with social conditions.  A prime example exists in the Berlin wall, which separated communist East Germany and the progressive West Germany until its fall in 1989.  “The western facing side of the Wall was literally and figuratively a 'gray area,' a virtual challenge to urban graffitists” (Leland 36)¹⁴.  Indeed one could see colorful Graffiti of all types on both sides of the wall (but especially on the western side), mainly protesting its existence.  The wall was a proud exclamation point in the long history of political Graffiti, in which Graffiti is used very plainly to give voice to views that are otherwise silenced.  Even though “[t]he Berlin Wall was thus always a symbol, or rather a set of symbols” (Leland 37)¹⁵, ultimately the wall allowed west Germans to create a whole new set of cultural symbols, giving voice to their frustrations and allowing expression.

            English Graffiti artist Banksy describes the social implications of Graffiti as far reaching, grander than the general public gives it credit for.  “Graffiti has been used to start revolutions, stop wars and generally is the voice of people who aren't listened to.  Graffiti is one of the few tools you have if you have almost nothing” (Banksy 1)¹⁶.  Thus Banksy concludes that, as a mode of communication, Graffiti is extremely effective.  Banksy himself sees the way that the public views Graffiti as part of a far-reaching social sickness, which distorts perception of what should and should not be acceptable; thus to call Graffiti immoral is much like the pot calling the kettle black.  “You could say that graffiti is ugly, selfish, and that its just the action of people who want some pathetic kind of fame,” steams Banksy, “but if that's true it's only because graffiti writers are just like everyone else in this fucking country” (Banksy 1)¹⁷.

            More often than not, Graffiti writers such as Banksy agree that the world in which we live discourages expression, thus nullifying any chance to increase self-esteem and become personally aware.  While the public attacks Graffiti as an assault on society, few bother to realize that in fact Graffiti is a reflection of an inherently sick society.  “It's always easy to attack visible symptoms rather than addressing the much bigger problems that cause them - poverty, boredom, no means to earn self-esteem....” (Shok I)¹⁸; these are the seeds that are sown in urban youth.  What more can one expect at the crossroads of creativity and social injustice?  The yearning to voice one's opinion and make a name for oneself while trapped in a society which discourages exactly that fuels the subconscious anger and frustration of urban youth, which leads invariably to Graffiti vengeance.  “I argue that the underlying force that fuels, the under current, the bonding agent and the essence of the Graffiti Culture is politics,” claims Graffiti artist Gabe the Saint in an interview, “[...] usually a young person, does not realize the social political problems that plague his world and the frustrations that they cause which inclines him/her to take revenge on society” (Gabe the Saint)¹⁹.  Thus the vast majority of Graffiti is born of a subconscious desire to make a name for oneself, to demonstrate to society that the perennial power is still in the hands of the people.

            Gang Graffiti is another, similar reflection of disenfranchised youth struggling to find a voice in society, yet the majority of Graffiti artists dismiss gang Graffiti as it is meant to be purely destructive.  Gang Graffiti is all about establishing one's space, and also position in a gang.  Gang Graffiti that is seen commonly on the streets “often  records struggles for dominance over a given territory” (Cummings 141)²⁰, and is most likely the type that average citizens think of when associating Graffiti with private property damage and general ugliness.  Gang Graffiti is usually a form of initiation into a gang.  The gang, in turn, lends the (usually poor, urban and ethnic) youth an identity, both in spirit and literally in name.  “With this gang imprimatur the person can now state that he is 'Wino' (or whatever nickname he has been given) and go on to graffiti his personal name along with the clique and barrio names, thus: El Wino, Tinies, El Hoyo Maravilla.  It is interesting to note that graffiti writing starts in the pregang socialization and junior high school phases, and there appears to be a progressive improvement through the years” (Cummings 105)²¹.  Certainly, gangs are prime examples of youths who feel disenfranchised by society, and thus seek acceptance through alternate means, and thus gangs serve to propagate the stereotype that graffiti is primarily the work of ethnic youth, deepening societies scorn and casting an even deeper divide between urban youth and society at large.

            Such unfortunate popular opinions regarding race relations (being that crime is mainly the product of ethnic youth) paved the way for non-ethnic youth to participate in the Graffiti culture.  Racial prejudices in 1980s New York City in particular allowed non-ethnic youth to exploit their social standing and further themselves in the graffiti world.  An interview with a white Graffiti writer in New York City in the legendary Graffiti documentary Style Wars reads thus: “I love robbin' paint.  Ya know, everybody knows how ya rob it.  He gets me suped up and sometimes I go and get fifteen cans at a time... Stuffin' it in your coat, in your shirt, in             the back of your pants [...] It's easy, for me anyway.  It's, ya know, harder on black kids and Spanish kids, 'cuz like, everybody thinks a graffiti writer is black or Puerto Rican, and that's like, ya know, it's wrong.  A lot of white people are writing” (Style Wars)²².  Politicians in 1980's New York helped propagate this stereotype as well.  Later on in the documentary, a top MTA official meets with a group of urban minority youth, presumably as a gesture of goodwill towards the Graffiti writing community.  He went on to say, “I met with a group of [ethnic graffiti writers] one day, more out of intellectual curiosity as to who they were and what makes them tick.  I found them surprisingly articulate [...]” (Style Wars)²³.  The condescending tone of the official is unsurprising, given the public's predisposition towards distrusting urban, ethnic youth, and indeed the MTA official's tone mimics that of the overwhelming majority in society, during the 1980's up until today.

            The pain of disenfranchised youth, the same that write Graffiti in the streets, can be traced back to schools, specifically in the area of art education.  Lacking a means of expression, thus lacking identity, the urban youth takes to the streets in hopes of making a name for him or herself.  Revered Graffiti artist Swatch1 voices his opinion on the subject: “The art education that is given to young kids today is just forcing the mainstream and renaissance art down your throats. Finding out about art from your own culture is up to you. School reinforces that Eurocentric art concept, which is basically 'the winner gets to rewrite history.' There are lots of Spanish artists that deserve recognition and study, and the whole continent of Africa has enough history, culture, and art to deserve a museum as big as a city. So why aren't these things introduced into young minds? Maybe it's part of the system's plot to subliminally reinforce the idea that you will never be accepted, you don't belong, don't even bother trying” (Swatch1)²⁴.  In an ironic twist, the school systems, which aim to keep students off the streets, drive students into the streets when even at the most basic level, youth living in the city are never exposed to the basic cultural tools which would allow them to express themselves in a non-destructive manner.  Those creative minds take to the streets to fulfill their artistic needs, and thus illegality becomes an integral part of their craft.

            Graffiti is legitimized by its illegality in that the friction between the law and urban youth  resulting from writing Graffiti has come to symbolize the power of the individual to affect the system.  Thus, what was once purely design took on meaning, becoming art.  Early on, Steve Schwartz of MTA anti-graffiti task-force in New York City became an object of fear and loathing in the Graffiti community due to his mockery and belittling of the writers themselves.  Mayor Edward Kotch would go on to join him in the ranks of Graffiti infamy.  Both were primary symbols of the struggle for power between law enforcement and urban youth.  A New York Graffiti artist shares this indicative anecdote: “[Steve] Schwartz sprayed Sky 3 [...]. He had asked [...] Sky 3 what was in this can he had 'cause one of the cans had the label peeled off, so he said 'Afro Sheen.'  So the guy opened the top, grabbed the guy, put him in a headlock and sprayed – the guy had a big Afro –  sprayed red paint all over this guy's Afro. [...]  [When] it dried he had to cut off all his hair.  That was unnecessary, that wasn't his job to do that [...]” (Castleman 160)²⁵.  Abuses of power by law enforcement such as the above were common back then, ranging from simple harassment and beatings to full violation of constitutional rights.  The youth, being in the position they were in, had no choice but to take their unjust punishment and repay it double in damages.  Oftentimes politicians, and in turn the police, would use networks of fear-mongering and bad information to make a case against Graffiti, demonizing writers along the way.  In 1970's and 1980's New York, two cops known simply in the Graffiti community as Hicky and Ski, became infamous for busting Graffiti vandals, employing shady tactics in apprehending their marks.  “The writers were well aware of [Hickey and Ski, two infamous police officers], and many of them attributed Hickey and Ski's high apprehension rate to the help they received from a vast network of paid informers” (Castleman 169)²⁶.  And so went the interplay between law enforcement and urban youth, an unending power struggle to prove whose voice rings loudest.

            Thus the illegality aspect (symbolizing the struggle for power and recognition in the city) of Graffiti art became such a part of its underlying culture that its presence became necessary in its creation.  “I don't personally consider legal murals pieces of graffiti.  Legality becomes an issue here for me.” states Graffiti artist Shmoo, “[...] Style doesn't necessarily mean that something is or isn't graf.  There are many writers who draw from all different styles of art in their pieces on walls, who still write graf” (Shmoo)²⁷.  Shmoo's implication is that Graffiti art is necessarily a function of its own illegality.  Regardless of style, Graffiti style paintings are not Graffiti art and never can be, because they lack the conflict necessary to add meaning to the craft.

            The conflict between youth and suppressive legislation has ironically led to the proliferation of the Graffiti art movement across the nation, and indeed the world, earning it a tentative spot within the legitimate art community.  This proliferation is due in no small part to mass media coverage, allowing the Graffiti movement to spread globally, raising awareness and helping to popularize new styles and artists.  Graffiti writer Swatch1 reminisces on his Graffiti experiences, saying, “I [being a prolific writer] could go anywhere and always be recognized by other writers, even if I haven't seen them for years” (Swatch1)²⁸.  Documentaries were a driving force in creating the media blitz leading up to the global proliferation of Graffiti.  “Personally, I think movies had a lot to do with it. After 'Wild Style' and 'Beat Street' came out in the early 80's,” theorizes Graffiti artists Riddle, “the graffiti culture began to spread worldwide” (Riddle)²⁹.  One had to hit the street with style, as it were, as the release of the superb documentaries such as the ones listed above raised the bar for all Graffiti artists, helping to take Graffiti art to the next aesthetic level.  Graffiti artist Sir Delux echoes the viewpoint that today, Graffiti art requires creativity and flair.  “Firstly,” he states in another interview, “I want to clarify something: randomly tagging various places isn't very creative. 'This is where I've been,' is about the extent of the message” (Sir Delux)³⁰.

            As a consequence of this global awareness that Graffiti art is taking a foothold in the legitimate art community as styles continue to evolve and become more appealing, the Graffiti artists themselves are finally beginning to see themselves for what they really are – legitimate artists – and are demanding to be treated as such.  Henry Chaflant, in his book Subway Art, interviews a young man on the subject of having a right to a fair say in city planning:  “In the city you don't get any say in what they build,” he bemoans, “[...] Maybe in the eyes of this town I'm not so important, because I don't have all that high a status, as in class and job, but I live here so i should have as much say as anyone else, and that's why I go out and paint, 'cause I want to say something, and I don't want to be told when I can do it” (Chaflant and Prigoff 10)³¹.  With a full head of steam and brimming with confidence, Graffiti artists continue to gain ground in the realm of becoming publicly, if not legally, accepted.  Yet even still, there exists a great conflict between society and urban youth.  Legendary Graffiti artist Syte offers his insight, postulating “[...] right now what [Graffiti] needs to do to grasp public attention, the kids who are out bombing bubbly throw ups and tagging shit everywhere need to start [making full masterpieces]. The public is never going to embrace tagging as a valid art form. It's the pieces that people look at and not realize that aerosol did it” (Syte)³². Thus, the enhancement of styles over the years, coupled with media coverage, has allowed the term “Graffiti art” to enter the public vernacular, and perhaps have a chance at public acceptance.

            It boggles the mind to think of all the unseen pain and suffering behind each and every piece of Graffiti, from the largest mural down to the smallest tag.  As a visual representation of the disenfranchisement of urban youth, the Graffiti that surrounds us reminds us of the indomitable human spirit in the face of such great adversity.  The conflict that arises from urban youth's struggle for identity in an apathetic world versus a system of governance which necessarily requires the mode of expression to be illegal legitimizes Graffiti as an art form and makes it equally as viable as any Cubist or Expressionist masterwork.  Graffiti writers wring their self-esteem from freeway underpasses and abandoned storefronts, and force an otherwise apathetic community to care about them, even if it is to hate them.  But even that hate is enough, it is more than nothing.

            No matter who you are, you know a Graffiti artist.  Even if you've never been to a museum before, you have seen and reacted to a piece of Graffiti art.  Thus is the awesome power of the Graffiti art movement.  Could you say the same for the Mannerists?

            In an interview with old-school Graffiti writer Japan I of New York, Norman Mailer asks what he'd do if someone were to steal his name, and presumably his identity.  “He merely snorts in answer, [...] 'I would still get the class.'” (Mailer 3)³³.  Just opening your eyes in the city makes someone famous.

Works Cited

Banksy.  Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall.  Bristol: Banksy, 2001.

Castleman, Craig. Getting Up. Cambridge: MIT P, 1982.

Chaflant, Henry and Prigoff, James.  Spraycan Art.  London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.

Cummings, Scott.  Gangs.  Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.

"Dadaism." Wikipedia. 2005. 11 Dec. 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadaism>.

Ferrell, Jeff.  Crimes of Style: Urban Graffiti and the Politics of Criminality.  Boston:             Northeastern University Press, 1996.

Gabe The Saint. "Why Do You Write? A Look Into the Motives Behind Graffiti Art." 50mm Los             Angeles. 9 Sept. 2004. 1 Feb. 2006             <http://50mmlosangeles.com/viewStory.php?storyId=7>.

Kurlansky, Mervyn; Naar, Jon; Mailer, Norman.  The Faith of Graffiti. New York: Praeger             Publishers, 1974

Leland, Rice.  Up Against It.  Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1991.

Pone. Interview with Susan Farrell. Art Crimes. 1995. 1 Feb. 2006             <http://www.graffiti.org/index/pone.html>.

Riddle. Interview with Sarah Jane. Art Crimes. 2005. 1 Feb. 2006             <http://www.graffiti.org/riddle/riddle_6.html>.

Sartwell, Crispin. "Graffiti paper for the anarchist book fair." Crispin's Graffiti Page. Oct. 2003.             24 Jan. 2006 <http://www.crispinsartwell.com/graff.htm>.

Sir Delux. Interview with Natalie O'Niell. 1 Feb. 2006             <http://www.sirdelux.com/content/interview.htm>.

Shmoo, John, SaGe, Kairos, Celtic, Susan. Interview with Susan Farrell. Art Crimes. 1994. 8             Jan. 2006 <http://www.graffiti.org/faq/graffiti_questions.html>.

SHOK I. Interview. Ammo City. 21 Feb. 2005. 28 Jan. 2006.             <http://www.ammocity.com/artman/publish/article_202.shtml>.

Style Wars.  Dir. Tony Silver.  1984.

(Author's note to entry Style Wars: material used:  19:40 – 20:04,  56:04 – 56:13)

Swatch1. Interview with Brett Webb. Art Crimes. 1995. 1 Feb. 2006             <http://www.graffiti.org/sw1/swatch.html>.

Sylvester, David. "Francisco De Goya." Artchive. 1 Feb. 2006             <http://www.artchive.com/artchive/G/goya.html>.

Syte. Interview with Dave Sullivan. Art Crimes. 2005. 1 Feb. 2006             <http://www.graffiti.org/syte/index.html>.

"Time Magazine: Graffiti Archive Collection." Time Magazine. 12 Dec. 2005             <http://www.time.com/time/archive/collections/0,21428,c_graffiti,00.shtml>.

Works Consulted

Abel, Earnest. The Handwriting on the Wall. Westport: Greenwood P, 1977.

Bowen, Tracey E. "Graffiti Art: A Contemporary Study of Toronto Artists." 12 Dec. 2005             <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0039-            3541%28199923%2941%3A1%3C22%3AGAACSO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D>.

Cooper, Martha. R.I.P. - Memorial Wall Art. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1992.

Davila, Florangela. "Exhibit Asks Us To Not Write Off Graffiti." The Seattle Times 15 Oct.             2004. Lexis Nexis. 11 Dec. 2005.

Ecker, David W. "Some Inadequate Doctrines in Art Education and a Proposed Solution."             Studies in Art Education  (1963).  <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0039-            3541%28196323%295%3A1%3C71%3ASIDIAE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6 >.

Edney, Kate. "Count Cost of Graffiti Vandals." Herald Sun 4 July 2005. Lexis Nexis. 11             December 2005.

Fox, Catherine. "Graffiti Misses the Mark in Gallery Setting." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution             5 July 2002. Lexis Nexis. 11 Dec. 2005.

Gastman, Roger. Supreme Quality. Bethesda: R77, 2004.

Kearns, Jeff. "Graffiti Art Party On Hold." Newsday (New York) 20 Aug. 2005. Lexis Nexis.               11 Dec. 2005.

Kim, Sojin. Chicano Graffiti and Murals. Jackson: University P of Mississippi, 1995.

McDonnel, Nick, and Carrie Melago. "A Graffiti War With Pol." Daily News (New York) 3 July      2005. Lexis Nexis.  11 December 2005

Phillips, Susan. "Graffiti." Dictionary of Art. 12 Dec. 2005             <http://www.graffiti.org/faq/graf.def.html>.