Presence of graffiti in economically advantaged & disadvantaged neighborhoods
To what extent does the presence of graffiti alter perceptions of the socioeconomic status and social dynamics in various neighborhoods around New York City?
What does a spray-painted wall tell the viewer about the neighborhood it resides in? Does the presence of graffiti change a person’s perspective of the area? Graffiti is not just street art, it is a message about the socioeconomic and political landscape of a community. Throughout history, graffiti has been used as a secret sign within marginalized communities before slowly merging into hip-hop culture, which started in low-income Black and Hispanic neighborhoods (Rahn, 22). As graffiti became prominent with people of color and those who reside in economically disadvantaged districts, it is apparent that the public, including myself, began to associate graffiti with indecency and acts of felony. This shift in perspective is evident through New York City’s efforts to eliminate and ban graffiti in the 1970s, as seen in the documentary Style Wars. After strolling around New York City and witnessing various forms of graffiti, I do believe that more presence of graffiti does impact how viewers perceive the socioeconomic status and safety of the environment. However, graffiti can definitely be viewed as a form of expression and resistance against state or government control over public spaces. This essay will argue that the mere existence of graffiti can alter personal views of economic circumstances and social dynamics of these public spaces because of its rebellious origin in marginalized and underprivileged communities.
The larger and more complicated a piece of graffiti is, the more likely it is to assume the area is more impoverished and neglected because there are less strict policies and surveillance which makes it easier for graffiti artists to work on their art piece. Graffiti is often linked to crime, gang activity, and urban deterioration because it is considered an act of vandalism. In economically developed districts like SoHo, Lincoln Center, and Murray Hill, there is a significantly less amount of graffiti.
In this particular picture taken in SoHo, a pink tag was painted on a worn out, grey yellow building in a children's playground.
The pink graffiti is a mix between a tag and a throw-up, though it is relatively small and simple. There are many tags next to it, and none were painted over. The graffitis are spaced out, spread evenly across the wall. The playground is small, located on a small street surrounded by tenements and coffee shops on both sides. It was surprising to see such a dilapidated playground and graffiti in the middle of a good area like SoHo, the shopping center of the world. However, there is no throw up or bigger graffiti pieces because there seems to be a lot of space left on the wall. My immediate reaction was to assume that because of more surveillance and affluent properties, not many graffiti artists come here to show their work.
Another example of graffiti in an economically well-off zone is this unfinished tag taken near 56th street, the graffiti is painted on a door of an abandoned office, likely out of business.
There are fancy tall buildings and shopping centers surrounding the area, so it was odd to see an empty office in the middle of the street being vandalized with graffiti. This tag is not very carefully painted, as the paint dripped downwards and the shape is not very detailed or defined. Putting on graffiti in a crowded or formal area is way riskier than in neighborhoods where there are not many visitors or men in suits around. The dripping graffiti has no defined or proper shape that can be deciphered, which shows that the graffiti artist didn’t have much time or didn’t put as much effort into creating this piece since the building is located in such a wide, public street where there are many pedestrians and cars on both sides. Although most of the graffiti I came across were tags, seeing graffiti in the Upper West Side made me realize that prosperous zones are not as safe or protected as I thought. Graffiti is considered to be vandalism by the laws, and the mere presence of graffiti suggests that a law has been broken, which perpetuates the negative perception of the area being unsafe and occupied by law brokers and graffiti artists.
More presence of big graffiti altered my perspective of the neighborhood because I now consider it to have worse economic and crime situations. As I entered more economically challenged areas like Mott Haven, south of Bronx, I noticed that there is a significantly higher amount of burners or throw-ups compared to central, gentrified areas in Manhattan.
This particular masterpiece is clearly visible, painted very high up in a building that doesn’t look completely abandoned. The colors used were very vibrant pink and purple, the written words are decipherable but not necessarily easily understood to the public, as it reads “NOTICE WESH”.
Considering this piece was created near the highway, it is very risky and everyone could have noticed the artist putting up his work. The more visible and transparent a graffiti is, the more risk is associated with the artwork, therefore, more respect is given to the artist and the graffiti piece itself. The reason why my outlook of the area might have shifted is because the media and policymakers have often linked graffiti to crime, gang activity, and urban deterioration. Maggie Dickinson challenges this idea that graffiti is inherently criminal or destructive in her essay, “The Making of Space, Race and Place: New York City's War on Graffiti, 1970—the Present”. She argues that it is more of a creative and political act done by marginalized groups to balance the power structure of public spaces. It is not always the case that graffiti signalizes more crimes in the neighborhood, but it might be linked to more freedom of expression and a more creative community. The perceptions of safety and economic status are hugely shaped by systemic bias, rather than actual harm from graffiti, “anti-graffiti laws are a means of regulating who has the right to public space.” The state does not impose graffiti bans to protect the public but to assert their dominance and control over the city and its population.
Less graffiti and more white walls implies that the people who reside here are rule followers and are more likely to be middle class or upper middle class. As Janice Rahn notes in her essay Painting Without Permission, “Walls for most people are symbolic boundarié for property and its values. The majority’s aesthetics associate white walls with middle-class values concerning property, job security, and respect for authority.” Less presence of graffiti could also mean that less people feel the need to take control of the place they live in, because they have the money to own public buildings themselves, as Janice Rahn said, “public space is controlled by those who have the money to buy it”. People who reside in less privileged neighborhoods are less likely to have money to own private property, so the only way they can leave a mark of identity and ownership is through graffiti. Graffiti writers in Style Wars, like Skeme, see public spaces as places meant for everyone, so their work can be considered as democratizing space. He does not view graffiti as a crime, and as he resided in economically disadvantaged areas like the Bronx, he took advantage of the environment and painting graffiti over expensive buildings in this case can be considered as an act of narrowing the income gap between the wealthy who own property and those who don’t. Painting graffiti on most houses and buildings in an area is an attempt to equalize and homogenize all premises and achieve income equality. Due to his economic background and the area he lived in, he had more desire to rebel against the biased system, which made him less of a rule follower. People who grew up well-off have less of this desire in comparison, as they tend to live in gentrified areas that are not as neglected.
Overall, graffiti does change the perception of the social behavior and economic status of an environment because of its culture of defying societal norms and governmental neglect in underprivileged communities. The presence of graffiti in more economically developed areas changes the perceptions of how safe the areas actually are as graffiti is often linked to crime, poverty, and lack of opportunity due to systemic bias. Seeing graffiti in underprivileged neighborhoods further brings up the internal bias regarding its inferior social and economic status, but they can remind us how public spaces can be transformed and ruled by the residents who reside there through the existence of graffiti. More presence of graffiti in economically challenged areas represents the underprivileged people’s desire for identity, control, and ownership.