Nowadays stencil graffiti can be found anywhere throughout the urban landscape. Made popular by graffiti artists such as Shepard Fairey who is the face behind OBEY stencils are not only our constant companion on our walks through the city, but they have come to be considered 'chic', with Hollywood stars not hesitating a minute to get their hands on 'a Banksy'. The use of spray paint, the claim of public space through subversive imagery and the not unusual rhetoric of violence clearly identify the stencil as part of the countermovement that is graffiti, as a tangible marker of subcultural activity. Yet, the fact that it has been somewhat 'domesticated' and thus become 'mainstream' leads me to question the subversive potential of stencil graffiti and to ask what distinguishes them from as well as what has happened to Jean Baudrillard's idea of graffiti as 'empty signifiers' as laid out in his 1975 essay 'Kool Killer, or the Insurrection of Signs' which was published in his seminal work 'Symbolic Exchange and Death' (1975:79).
I came across the 'Free Marc Emery' stencil on West Hastings Street. It is sprayed onto the sidewalk right in front Vancouver's Scientology Headquarters. The fist in the centre of the image alludes to an inherent violent potential, as do the broken bars. The accompanying marijuana leaf not only hints at Emery himself and the political as well as social agenda he represents – he is the leader of the BC Marijuana Party, a strong cannabis policy reform advocate and currently imprisoned in the United States – but it implies that the entire marijuana subculture is willing to resist and fight for Emery's release as well as figuring itself capable of being victorious in the end. Hence, it is a blatantly political message that is to be conveyed by the stencil. Yet, after having investigated further into the topic, I discovered that this particular stencil was not the creation of an inspired and angry individual, but the result of what might in fact be called a 'marketing campaign'.
Admittedly, Baudrillard had a specific kind of graffiti in mind when writing his essay in 1975, namely graphics made up entirely of names evocative of underground comics, pseudonyms negating any notion of individuality that would derive their subversive power exactly from this anonymity (1975:76). These 'empty signifiers' refused to conform to the urban semiotic overload and countered with semiotic void. They constituted “a new type of intervention in the city, no longer as a site of economic and political power, but as a space-time of the terrorist power of the media, signs and the dominant culture” (1975:76). Since in a world in which meaning is key the idea of meaninglessness seems unbearable, such empty signifiers are likely to cause distress and irritation. How does the 'Free Marc' stencil conform to the idea of graffiti as the tangible marker of emotional outburst as well as uncontrollable and juvenile, so to speak, expressiveness?
The 'Free Marc' graffiti is obviously no such 'empty signifier'. It does have a message. Yet, that alone does not necessarily denies it its subversive character. As Baudrillard notices: “There are also frescoes and murals in the ghettos (...) Moreover, they all focus on political themes, on a revolutionary message (...) In any case, it is a matter of a counter-culture” (1975:82–83). What is much more interesting and significant in the context of my analysis is the fact that the stencil was created by the same group of people that operates the 'Free Marc' website and that started the repatriation campaign. It is meant to provide Emery's supporters with an 'authentic' method of protesting. Rather than thinking for themselves, his fans and advocates are being told how to appropriately voice their opinions. Since graffiti as a medium is believed to express a person's individuality while at the same time questioning the very notion of the individual – “When you step into this subculture, you are expected to leave all traces of 'real-life' on its doorstep” (Macdonald 2005:312) – as well as to subvert any kind of structure, one might ask if the 'Free Marc Emery' stencil and the 'industry' that has evolved around it, can still be considered 'graffiti'. Can we call this campaign a form of 'protest'?
Personally, I sense an inherent contradiction between the medium's very own character, the group's agenda and its way of going about getting its message across, insofar as the organization behind 'Free Marc' makes use of graffiti's subversive character in a way that is deliberate taking advantage of its scope and using a type of graffiti that is almost aesthetically pleasing. Consequently, it loses some of its rebellious potential, for the aestheticization of the urban landscape does not really seem to be part of graffiti's agenda if it intends to be subversive. Furthermore making us, as potential graffiti artists, aware of the fact that we might face a fine for spray painting the stencil – there is a list '75 Fun Things You Can Do To Help Free Marc' on the group's website that not only provides people with a variety of ideas like for example 'Writing and performing a song on Youtube', but that also assesses these different 'forms of protest' on 'risk', 'effectiveness' and 'cost' – the group operates within the realm of today's consumer culture and lets itself be guided by economic considerations. Interestingly enough, the 'Free Marc' stencil also by virtue of its very locality reaches out instead of trying to create some kind of sub- and counter-cultural, exclusive discourse. It does not remain within a 'graffiti-prone' area, but being close to such localities it hints at the acceptance of, or in other words the increasing 'obliviousness' to graffiti. Hence, the fact that it is right in front of the Scientology HQ – something that might actually be seen as particularly offensive – only underlines this widespread 'failure to recognize the graffiti as potentially dangerous'. At the same time this stresses the increasing appropriation and thus 'taming' of graffiti.
Surely, the stencil draws on a dynamic and robust visual language largely identified with graffiti (Macdonald 2005:317–318). Yes, by creating points of encounter the stencil and the group behind it, do confront the general public. And, indeed, the person who actually spray paints the stencil does remain invisible: Due to the fact that the stencil itself can be used by anyone who accesses the website it is impossible to ascribe the actual graffiti to a particular person. Nevertheless, it is not this 'reclaiming of public space by the individual' that led the initiators to launch this campaign. This particular stencil participates actively in the public discourse; it creates it in fact for Marc Emery by taking advantage of the public's general acceptance for stencils.
The graffiti in this case is no longer Baudrillard's 'empty signifier', but a tamed and socially acceptable version of it. Unlike 'traditional' graffiti such as tags or large murals, stencils are a practice that combines technology and art, ingenuity and structure, expressiveness and self-restriction. So if this lack of subversive power can be attributed to the stencil in general – as the tag's well-behaved sibling – or to the way it is being used here, we cannot tell. It is, however, striking that a subculture making use of another subculture's visual language – the graffiti scene – in front of a third 'fringe group', does not create any controversy whatsoever. On the contrary, it prompted me to write an essay about the lack of today's graffiti's undermining potential. Maybe that is due to the stencil's aesthetic quality or because we have become used to the signs – subversive or not – surrounding us. Language and signs are part of our physical environment (Pennycook 2009:304).
Graffiti, then, is not only the marker of a certain activity and a medium to express oneself, but something that guides us in the way we perceive and navigate the urban space; something we have become accustomed to; a medium readily available to everyone who feels the need to make use of it.
References Cited
Baudrillard, Jean
1993 Symbolic Exchange and Death. Iain Hamilton Grant, trans. London: Sage.
'Free Marc Emery' Website, accessed February 5, 2011, http://freemarc.ca.
Macdonald, Nancy
2005 The Graffiti Subculture: Making a World of Difference. In The Subcultures Reader. 2nd edition. Ken Gelder, ed. Pp. 312–325. New York: Routledge.
Pennycook, Alastair
2009 Linguistic Landscape and the Transgressive Semiotics of Graffiti. In Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. Elana Shohamy and Durk Gorter, eds. Pp. 302–312. New York: Routledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment