Better than the buildings it's written on
In Opinions
What good does a blank wall do us? None, as far as I can tell. There is no defense for keeping our sidewalks silent. There is a stencil that recently appeared on the side of Emily Dickinson Hall that reads, "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression" as said by W.E.B. DuBois. This statement epitomizes my argument. Whatever negative side effects might occur from graffiti are nothing compared to the negative side effects of repressing it.
Any problems or complications that come with free speech and expression are worth it for all of the good that comes out of freedom of expression. Yes, sometimes people will behave in asinine ways. However, the mistakes of the few should not be used as an excuse for the oppression of the many. Not everyone has good ideas, and sometimes their ideas are objectionable, but at least by allowing these ideas to be explored in a public space, dialogue is fostered and people can participate in it. I would rather hear someone say racist, offensive, objectionable things and thus be able to combat their views than not have any idea of what they thought or be able to argue with it.
It is important to increase the amount of discussion, dialogue, conversation, debate, thoughts, and ideas on campus. Even if this means hearing more ideas we do not like, it is far better than the alternative. Limiting the voices and decreasing the diversity of ideas is repressive and hurts a society or community.
Only a fool would make the argument that Hampshire College and its grounds, a remnant of the 1970's, are aesthetically pleasing. The argument against graffiti and other artwork on buildings makes a bit more sense if there is something worthwhile about the buildings to start with. But when the buildings are already ugly it seems like there is at least potential for improvement with graffiti. If there was more graffiti on campus buildings might not be so drab. Personally, I always smile when I see someone's artwork on a column of the library, or on the pavement between buildings. They brighten up otherwise ugly and boring cement and asphalt. Imagine Greenwich donuts with extensive murals on all of the outside walls, all of ASH an exhibit to the creativity of Hampshire. Why not? What does this hurt? Our buildings are not monument-they often barely serve the practical purposes for which they were intended.
When taking up public space is only "legitimate: when you pay for it (advertisers in the subways, for instance), people who have nothing but ideas to "sell," who don't have the type of money needed to buy space, or who refuse to pay for space will then use space in "illegitimate" ways. If these people did not illegally post graffiti then their opinions would be drowned out by the roar of corporations and those with money. Graffiti is one of the only ways for non-corporation and non-governmental entities to get their word out.
Individuals cannot compete against the big guns of corporations and the government in a legal way-they have a monopoly on communication networks. Asking nicely does not result in solutions. The safety nets that are supposed to protect the people from monopolized media fail ridiculously. Instead, they protect capitalism. The FCC, for instance, allows Clear Channel to control much of the airwaves, and makes it exceedingly difficult for communities to start their own radio stations-which is why some resort to guerilla radio.
The argument will inevitably be made for graffiti artists to use the graffiti wall by the art barn. But this sanctioned space in many ways defeats the purpose of graffiti. To start, the space is so limited that no one's art stays up for long-there is always new paint covering old paint. This is a natural progression that happens in many places, but it seems a shame for the art to disappear so quickly. This space is clearly not a space where ideas can been expressed in the long term or in a situational manner. Often much of the significance of graffiti is based on its surroundings-pieces are placed with thought towards the environment around them and how these factors will work together to tell a story. In the library building, as well as outside of it, stencils of a white elephant have been popping up. If simply placed on a sanctioned graffiti wall there would be little significance to such a stencil.
By placing the stencils on the building that is central to Hampshire College, the artist is making a statement about the usefulness of the institution. Or at least that is my interpretation...the placement in the library leaves room for many interpretations as to the meaning of the stencil that couldn't be made if it were elsewhere.
No one is arguing that the on-campus graffiti is really good right now. A lot of the tags that get spread around are pretty badly done in terms of artistic skill. Many of the stencils are better. But just because right now the graffiti is not very good does not mean that it can not develop into good graffiti. Like most other things, it takes practice. Competition can also help spur artists into improving their tags. There are graffiti artists such as Bansky who are internationally famous for their work-the medium of graffiti does have integrity.
Probably the most valid argument I have heard against graffiti is the extra work that it takes to remove, and the man-hours and resources that have to be devoted to such efforts. However, this strikes me as a circular argument-there is no reason why the state or school has to remove all graffiti. It is their choice, and they ought not blame their actions on graffiti artists. It strikes me as the same skewed logic that parents might use to justify hitting a child-they admit that their act is distasteful, but say they are obligated to behave in that way because of the child's actions. Largely this is a baseless argument. Everyone makes choices, and the choice of the college or government to waste money, people's time, and resources on removal of graffiti is their choice, disconnected from the actions of the graffiti artists.
Graffiti has the potential to positively affect the Hampshire community and other spaces by offering a larger forum for discussion and thought around a variety of ideas. Aside from the political or social messages of graffiti, it also stands alone as an art form. There is simply not enough evidence or proof to show that graffiti is somehow destructive to our community, and plenty of potential for it to make our lives more interesting.