From Paleolithic cave drawings to scribbles of names on Delhi’s monuments, humans have always left their mark on public spaces. Through this article, we explore the evolution of graffiti, its roots in rebellion and dissent, and the stark contrast with commissioned street art.
Roughly between 40,000 and 14,000 years ago, the Paleolithic man made the first cave drawing. Eons later, as we stroll by narrow alleyways in Delhi, we see colorful graffiti lining up old walls, peeling away slowly. Between these thousands of years, humans never once stopped leaving pieces of art in public squares, subway stations, public baths, school desks, etc. Ancient Romans and Greeks scribbled their names and slogans of resistance on buildings in 31 BC, so did Napoleon’s soldiers in 1803, and so do Modern Indians in 2024 on monuments such as Qutub Minar.
Graffiti is thus a cultural, historical fact. Graffiti, as we now understand it, saw its genesis in the 1970s, when people began spray painting their names, or simple pieces of art, on trains. It also has its roots in the gang culture of New York. ‘Taggers’ went about discreetly spraying the names of their ‘crew’ on buildings and alley walls to mark their territory. The term graffiti was first used by The New York Times to describe this phenomenon. Graffiti was particularly popular in the urban areas of the United States as well as Europe, commonly targeting subways, trains, billboards, and walls.
Graffiti also forms a huge part of student culture, where students often use it as an anonymous outlet to express their dissent with the system they are thrust into. In August of 2024, a student of Disha Students’ Organization was suspended for writing ‘Scrap NTA’ on a wall in Delhi University’s North Campus. Some thought of this as valid disciplinary action, while others saw it as a stifling of students’ voices.
Graffiti has thus historically been a tool of dissent, especially in conflict zones where open public protests can be dangerous. It has also been legally considered as vandalism and destruction of property. The two basic ideological views on graffiti are that it is a form of self-expression and an outlet for social and political unrest while others view it as a violation of property rights and defacement of public property.
This, however, raises the question of public/street art versus graffiti. What differentiates the two and what is it about street art that makes it acceptable and what is it about graffiti that makes it illegal?
The most glaring difference between the two is that street art is usually created with permission, generally from the local ruling dispensation. While both art forms are created for public spaces, the act of creating graffiti is symbolically and politically very different from murals or other forms of street art. It is associated with rebellion and involves high-risk and covert methods of painting. It thus does not simply remain a physical act of creating a painting, but there is the added risk of incarceration or punishment, and it comes to represent something more.
Local and even central governments often commission artists to create murals to ‘beautify’ the city. But one can argue whether such murals constitute real art like graffiti does. If art is commissioned by authority, can it ever truly reflect the feelings, problems, and thoughts of the masses? Or does it simply advance certain dominant ideological narratives?
Why is it that art approved by the bureaucratic, partisan apparatus is considered to add to the beauty of the city, while graffiti is thought to take away from it? It can be hypothesized that class dynamics have a role to play in the same. Graffiti does not require formal training or expensive resources. All you need is a few cans of spray paint. On the other hand, street art may require more skill, and training, and commissioned murals may be accessible to more privileged artists who have better access to such training and resources.
Thus, street art, which is supposed to be in the public domain, becomes gentrified, and the voices of the marginalized become overshadowed once again. For instance, in the famous Lodhi Art District, many murals speak of issues such as climate change, gender, etc., but since it is authorized, commissioned art, it speaks of these issues within a certain ideological box that it cannot breach, owing to its patron. While the colorful paintings at Lodhi Art District get posted all over social media and even promoted by the government as a tourist attraction, the graffiti in tunnels and alleys get painted over and hidden.
That is not to say that street art is a ‘lower’ form of public art. These murals are often very intricate and painstakingly curated by hardworking and talented artists. The point here is that street art is often conflated with graffiti when it is a gentrified, politically toned-down version of it. The art of graffiti deserves to be separately recognized for what is particularly represented—dissent and the ‘unsavory’ side of the city. It is not an irritant or an eyesore but an integral part of the story of the city. It is a bright, colorful reminder of the frustrations, hopes, and expressions of a section of the population that gets conveniently tucked away and hidden.
Featured Image Credits : Herzindagi.com
Read also: Of Separation, Solidarity and Sustenance
Disha Bharti