Anti-patriarchy graffiti in Ohio
Thoughts?
Thanks to Elizabeth for sending along the pic.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Anti-patriarchy graffiti in Ohio.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11369
I couldn't read it so I lightened the photo a bit here.
I think cake is much more delicious than bombs.
I must admit that I cracked up a little.
I've seen this as a sticker or poster in a lot of anarcha-feminist and militant feminist hauses:
http://www.stellamarrs.com/images/product/postcards_full/46_pc_full.jpg
I don't know it's origin, but I get the impression that it was originally meant to inspire women to take up science.
That would make sense (and certainly make my peace-loving self more comfortable with the sentiment).
I don't like graffiti. Why destroy property to make your point? You're not being subversive or anything along those lines. You're being a child who cannot make their point any other way but violence and destruction. And I think this particular one proves my point.
I wish feministing would not feature crime as good things to be admired.
First of all, how is graffiti itself violent? Secondly, just because something is against the law doesn't mean that it's wrong. Is it nice to mark up someone else's property? Certainly not. But sometimes drastic measures must be taken.
Sincerely,
Someone who spent many a high school prep period covering bathroom stalls with feminist poetry. They washed it off every few days, but frankly I think one can only benefit from reading a little Plath while they pee.
-Is it nice to mark up someone else's property? Certainly not. But sometimes drastic measures must be taken.
What an arrogant thing to say. So would you have a problem if everyone came over to your house and just started spray painting the hell out of it because THEY thought it was okay? If your answer is no, you're a degenerate.
There's a difference between marking just any building and marking someone's home. Also, if I was oppressing a population, then someone would have every right to use words and, yes, even a Sharpie to stop me. I probably wouldn't approve of it, but then again, if this hypothetical me was oppressing a population, they don't hold my ideals, anyway. (In other words, I don't do anything that I believe would justify retribution in that manner.) If that makes me a degenerate, then so be it. I'm a dirty hippie who thinks we've been evolving in the wrong direction anyway, so that's really a compliment.
There's a difference between marking just any building and marking someone's home.
A person is losing money and property either way. How it is different?
If that makes me a degenerate, then so be it.
Don't give up true ideals for complacency and the easy way out. Keep up the energy and keep fighting!
A person is losing money and property either way. How it is different?
Perhaps simply because it's literally closer to home. Home is where your belongings, your pets, your family, your heart is. I could see how defacing that could be considered threatening. Expressing yourself in an impersonal alleyway or bathroom is less confrontational.
Don't give up true ideals for complacency and the easy way out. Keep up the energy and keep fighting!
Fighting for what? We disagree. That's OK. I hope that the people who hate graffiti will someday feel the joy and curiosity that I feel when I look out a train window and see a solid half-mile of art, a testament to the self-expression of dozens if not hundreds of people. Or it's possible that someday I'll have an epiphany and share your point of view. But when the conversation degenerates (pardon the lack of creative word choice) to name-calling there's not much more to talk about.
-There's a difference between marking just any building and marking someone's home.
If there is a difference, it's still wrong.
-I probably wouldn't approve of it, but then again,
But then again, I don't stand behind my words.
-If that makes me a degenerate, then so be it.
Yes, vandalizing property just because you feel like it- who cares? Hey, how about all the misogynists, racists, etc. spray paint their crap all over the place? If they feel there's been an injustice then it MUST be okay.
-I'm a dirty hippie who thinks we've been evolving in the wrong direction anyway, so that's really a compliment.
Yes, vandalizing property because you're too stupid to find alternatives is a compliment.
Are you having a particularly bad day or something? (Not that that would be an excuse.) I don't understand why you're so vehemently hateful. I'm not advocating someone carving their message into someone's flesh, I'm saying that ink/paint + wall ? destruction of humankind.
That ? was supposed to be a 'does not equal' sign, by the way.
Heh -1 I hit "Liked" instead of "Reply"
I may not approve of graffiti, but I have to say I really don't approve of your personal attacks like "stupid" and "degenerate". You're the one engaging in childish insults instead of discussion.
I am curious though, you seem to be using "wrong" and "illegal" interchangeably. Are you arguing legality defines morally right and wrong?
-Are you having a particularly bad day or something?
No.
-I'm not advocating someone carving their message into someone's flesh
No one inferred such. There's plenty of ways to get your message across. Vandalism (this level of vandalism- telling you can make a bomb and cake, and telling them to fuck off?) is for the dregs of society. I mean, people don't even know where this is coming from! They just see oh look, heh heh, I can make cake and bombs- vandalism! Heh heh!
-I am curious though, you seem to be using "wrong" and "illegal" interchangeably. Are you arguing legality defines morally right and wrong?
I only used it once. Of course, it is illegal- I don't need to say that, right? But you may not know that I think it's wrong- and it is :) So you got the legal, practical front- and the moral front.
-but I have to say I really don't approve of your personal attacks like "stupid" and "degenerate"
Degenerate? Then what would you have me call them? People who were too lazy to work their word out instead of drawing on a wall like a 2 year old?
Saying there's a difference between someone's home (or maybe car or other personal property) and public areas fosters anti-community sentiments. Like anything public actually belongs to nobody so it's OK to deface it. Why should anyone respect your home when you disrespect public spaces which belong to everybody?
First of all, how is graffiti itself violent?
It's threatening violence to bend people to their way of thinking.
Secondly, just because something is against the law doesn't mean that it's wrong...But sometimes drastic measures must be taken.
Only unjust laws should be broken. Do you think laws against anyone deciding that they can destroy? Disobeying laws to suit whatever need you have is anarchy, and it also does not bring honor to your fight. Really, if your cause is really so noble and righteous (and I know feminism is), then you don't need to commit crimes to get people to agree with you and to work to change things.
Further, if you're ok with feminist graffiti, then you have to ask yourself if you're ok with someone else getting their message out with graffiti. Would you be ok with a bigot spray painting on the side of a building how women should stay in the kitchen? If you're not ok with others doing it, then you are being self serving and your beliefs are wrong.
I'm much more comfortable with washable graffiti. Chalk is great. Especially on a sidewalk when someone doesn't have to do the job and expense of washing your doodles off.
It's threatening violence to bend people to their way of thinking.
This particular example? Perhaps. But unless you interpret the most common types of graffiti, such as "SARA WUZ HERE!!!" and "Free Tibet!" as threats of violence, your theory doesn't pan out on a larger scale.
Only unjust laws should be broken. Do you think laws against anyone deciding that they can destroy?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I'm guessing you're asking if I think anyone should be able to destroy anything they like. And of course not. However, I do think women's rights trump the rights of an inanimate object. I don't even really think that graffiti should be legal, although public property is disputable. But there's a difference between something being illegal and something being unethical.
Further, if you're ok with feminist graffiti, then you have to ask yourself if you're ok with someone else getting their message out with graffiti. Would you be ok with a bigot spray painting on the side of a building how women should stay in the kitchen? If you're not ok with others doing it, then you are being self serving and your beliefs are wrong.
First and foremost, I think that bigot is wrong. Of course I'm going to disagree with him spray painting that message, because I think that message is wrong. However, if those are his beliefs, I'm not going to change his mind by trying to shut him up. I'd rather put my efforts toward opening his mind.
And your opinion already seems to be that I'm being self serving and that my beliefs are wrong. You telling me this does not make it so.
First of all, how is graffiti itself violent?
It's threatening violence to bend people to their way of thinking.
Whatever people's opinions are about graffiti, I will never understand the idea of it being "violent". Graffiti itself does not threaten anyone with violence. It's spray paint and words. That alone doesn't threaten violence.
My friend used to write fat positive graffiti on trains. Who in their right mind could describe that action as "violent"?
Graffiti can be violent, given the specific message that is expressed. However, graffiti itself? No.
Would you be ok with a bigot spray painting on the side of a building how women should stay in the kitchen? If you're not ok with others doing it, then you are being self serving and your beliefs are wrong.
Despite the flaws in your basic logic (if you disagree with misogynist graffiti but agree with feminist graffiti then you are a hypocrite - there are variables that you haven't discussed and therefore would change the outcome to possibly make you wrong), what you are forgetting is that misogynistic "graffiti" does exist. There are advertisements everywhere you turn, and they are destructive, not to property, but to women and men, helping to bind us into steadfast gender roles.
The difficult thing about this is that we may not have the money or resources to get our message across legally, and this David and Goliath problem seems much more important than someone's alleyway being free from stencils and poems. Life is far too complicated to say that almost any one thing that doesn't directly hurt another person is wrong all of the time.
I don't agree with the violent implication in this particular piece of graffiti, but I do believe that it is not childlike or stupid to use the materials that are open to us to try and combat the overwhelming sexism that is plastered on walls and billboards - perhaps legally, but not morally sound.
Writing on walls != destruction. Now, if the artist had actually made that bomb, you'd have a point.
So you're ok with property destruction in order to your point of view across?
Anti-capitalism is an excuse to be an asshole? Wow, what a shortsighted political analysis that is. FUCK YOUR PROPERTY, LOVE HUMANITY - now that was deep :]
that was meant to be darby so sorry destra. me and my rage.
that was meant to be to darby so sorry destra. me and my rage.
whoa i double posted, this is a crazy day for me.
A lot of people have basically already said this but:
Graffiti can be a form of art, destruction can be a form of creation. Graffiti is a way to reach people you don't know, it is a way to get your message across, get people thinking, and express yourself creatively.
Besides, society gets the kind of vandalism it deserves.
Cute but what feminists want to make bombs? Really?
Anarcha-feminists maybe? Idk, off the top of my head i'd guess a lot of women who worked with the Weather Underground back in the day probably identify as feminists now, if not then as well.
I think it's sort of conspicuous that the post title identified this as "anti-patriarchy" graffiti when all the other posts on various kinds of street art have used the term "feminist." Perhaps we are a little less inclined to label as "feminist" expressions of resistance to patriarchy that involve means that we are uncomfortable with?
The people who consider bombs a valid part of a military? (Even a defensive one.) After all, the better our bombs get, the less innocent lives they take (for smartbombs, that is).
Or the feminists who just like blowing things up. It's not a strictly male pass time!
Oh come on, companies graffiti all over the place with their consumer crap, often insulting product placements and insecurity-inducing beauty illusions. Graffiti is just comments from others who don't have thousands of dollars to purchase property. The landscape is ruined by billboards––trees cut down etc to make room. Small messages of protest are hardly criminal in comparison.
And also: I like the sentiment. It's OBVIOUSLY tongue-in-cheek and thus ironic kick-ass. The Feminist movement has never killed anyone, and the Suffragette destruction of property, from my perspective, was completely justified by the cause and the oppressed situation from which they were attempting to speak.
Really? The "I don't have it so I'll just take it" stance is just validating theft. If people want to get their message out, but they don't have money to do it, they need to stand out there with a sign in their hands. Put some effort into the message you hold so dear.
Destra appears to subscribe to the "property before people" paradigm.
In America, the hierarchy seems to go something like this:
1. White people's lives
2. White people's property
3. POC property (feeds an economy that benefits white people)
4. POC lives
That doesn't even begin to get into gender, but seriously. I'm really shocked at all the mourning of the perfection of an ugly-ass wall, probably in some repetitive strip mall parking lot. I really wish people like Destra could muster as much outrage for people as she can for commercial property. We might change shit that way.
To be fair, some white people's property (or POC property, or sometimes even POC lives if they have enough property) is higher on the list than some white or POC lives. Yay, equality!
Very true. It's a really rough sketch, but instructive, I think, to see where it works and where it doesn't. This entire thread is particularly illustrative: feminists should express subversive ideas but only as condoned by capitalist patriarchy. WTF?!?
Whats the saying, well not the saying but the truth, That 9/10th's of the law is about property or is it 8? Well, anyway PRIVATE PROPERTY = CAPITALISM = INEQUALITY = FAT WHITE MEN WITH FAT WALLETS CRUSHING ON YOUR DREAMS. Its like Emmeline Pankhurst said 'All they care about is property, so that is what we will attack' - or something along those lines and its so true. Private property is the absolute bedrock of modern capitalist societies and their stratas thus its protection is absolute, even the slightest dis/configuring of the landscape by anything other than a corporation is apparently 'violent'.
Destra appears to subscribe to the "property before people" paradigm.
Despite appearances, that’s certainly not true. I subscribe to the “peaceful protest” paradigm to change society’s views and actions. You know, like MLK and Gandhi? No riots, no destruction, no violence, no murder. You can stop injustice and patriarchy, thereby putting people first, AND respecting people’s things. They are not mutually exclusive.
I really wish people like Destra could muster as much outrage for people as she can for commercial property. We might change shit that way.
My passion is for the good of our cause, and it's integrity. When you stoop to the level of committing crime to further feminism, you hurt it, no help it. Threats and destruction will not convince people that you are right; it will only convince them that you are a criminal and should not be listened to. Our cause is right. It’s noble. It does not need base forms of communication to influence people and convince them to work towards good.
1. End of apartheid in South Africa
2. American Revolution
3. French Revolution
4. Central American indigenous movements resisting their own genocide
5. Many, many more
All riotous and destructive. Absolute pacifism is so neat and easy for those with plenty to lose and a selective understanding of history. I guess Israelis and Palestinians just need to sing songs around a campfire, right? And then they'll be good and civilized like us Americans!
This is the problematic thinking that lies behind the sanctitude of property position.
*ahem* Gandhi wasn't super into the existence of private property, so saying that he'd be against the "destruction" of private property by writing political slogans is ridiculous.
But Graffiti artists do in general have respect for people's private property. You don't see tags on the sides of private homes or etched into car windows. If you found your windows etched would you take it as a critique of capitalism or would you take it as an attack?
Similarly business owners are people too. And even if they don't mind graffiti in their alleyways, in most American cities they will be fined for everyday that it remains up. No they aren't suffering from an act of violence, but they rightly feel attacked. Maybe this isn't a big deal for large chain stores. They can after all send out the minimum wagers to clean it up. It's more of a hardship for small business owners.
Yes, this here, I love it. I was going to try and make a comment in defense of graffiti after seeing all the random anti-graffiti (how dare we break the law to get our point across! Goodness me!) comments, but I'm just going to say that I could not have said it better than you did. Lovely :)
I like this. Not because I condone violence, but because the patriarchy likes to paint women as meek and vulnerable. To me, it's saying "Watch out--we're not as defenseless as you think we are."
The mere act of graffiting is making an anti-establishment statement. In this case, as with many other political graffiti, the use of the medium serves specifically to compound the more message expressed explicitly in the work. For many artists, the use of the medium is just as, if not more important than the work itself
Anarcha Feminism FTW.
Why should we have to have money to make our voices heard?
Besides, graffiti is art!
Why should we have to have money to make our voices heard?
Besides, graffiti is art!
Because if just anyone could speak and be heard, then the status quo might change. And that would be really bad for the powers that be.
So be a good peon and STFU.
Nope; don't wanna! :-P
You don't have to have money to get your voice heard, nor do you have to commit crimes in order for it to be so.
Art is very noble. I'm an artist, and I adore art in many forms. The "artist" that has to destroy someone else's stuff to make their art is not creative enough to think of another way, and because of that lack of creativity is an inferior artist. Besides, buildings and architecture are art too. Let's not destroy one for the other.
I don't know if that's true these days. It seems to me that they've priced, taxed, and legislated everything to the hilt. In fact, my own brother got arrested for peacefully protesting the war a few months ago. Where was his right to voice his opinion?
Also, from what I understand, real graffiti artists (not those who do mindless tagging and the like) tend to have an unwritten law against bombing churches, historical buildings, and whatnot.
if buildings are art, then i think the graffiti on those buildings could make them more artsy, even more reflective of the period they're in. art is too subjective for these comments. i like graffiti.
I'm a huge fan of graffiti, but I don't agree that putting graffiti on already beautiful old buildings is adding anything to the building, since we're looking at the building itself as art. It's kind of like putting graffiti on the Mona Lisa. Adding too much takes away from the original work.
Has anyone heard the Picasso quote - "One must destroy to create"?
No matter how hard you try, you can't avoid destroying something to create another. That may be someone's paint job, or a canvass, or a tube of paint - it goes on.
What a creator has to weigh up is whether or not what she/he will create is worth more to their cause than what she/he must destroy, and I hope that feminists are not so vindictive to get that wrong.
Why should we have to have money to make our voices heard?
Besides, graffiti is art!
Sorry about the multiple posts; it didn't look like my comment was going to register.
Nice sentiment, disappointing presentation. I wonder where this was placed (on a military installation, science lab, bakery!)?
For fuck's sake. Do the trembling middle classes only want their feminism in small, polite and well-dressed doses so nobody gets offended? Is feminist graffiti just too much to wrap your brain around? It's much easier when you can blame all the graffiti on bad "inner-city" black kids, right?
Somebody spray painted a wall; nobody got shot. As a feminist, I have to say that my concern for making sure everybody keeps off the grass, so to speak, ranks a hell of a lot lower than my concern with getting feminist messages out there and upsetting the monotonous grind of being female under patriarchy.
If we don't want to be treated like objects, then we should at least quit equating violence against human life with the aesthetics of a concrete wall. This is exactly the kind of dumbass hand-wringing that so entirely misses the point that has earned white feminists a shitty rep among women of color. It's a fucking WALL. Chill.
I have to say that my concern for making sure everybody keeps off the grass, so to speak, ranks a hell of a lot lower than my concern with getting feminist messages out there and upsetting the monotonous grind of being female under patriarchy.
You bring you honor to the cause by encouraging destruction and breaking of laws. You and other who encourage these things (and those that actually commit crimes) hurt what we are fighting for. To truly turn the tide of society's thoughts is not brought about with the sword, but with the olive branch. Inciting violence and destruction will only convince other that you as a criminal are not right in your beliefs, and they will be less likely to follow your cause. If feminism is a truly great thing to achieve, it will be able to reach people through discussion and demonstration. It is only the unworthy causes that must be forced through with unlawfulness.
Chill.
Gee, this sounds familiar. Where have I heard this one before? Oh yes, people throwing around sexist comments and trying to pass them off as jokes telling feminists to lighten up. Destruction is a very serious matter. It's not to be taken lightly.
Wait, so now saying that anything is less drastic than something else can be compared to full-blown sexism? There are very few matters as serious as equal rights. Architectural aesthetic is not one of them.
It's NIMBY-ism at its finest. Apparently it's impossible to contemplate that in order to end patriarchy, we who have benefited from a global system of dominance and submission, largely executed through classical liberal property law, might have to spend half an hour repainting our white picket fences. OMG the horror!
I mean this metaphorically, of course. It's going to take a lot more than graffiti to overturn patriarchy. That's why I find the whining about "mine, mine, mine! damn kids, stay off my lawn!" as such a distraction and ultimately, a sign of how difficult it will be to create any substantial change. If even feminists get so upset over graffiti, what the hell is going to happen when much, much bigger changes come down?
I guess we should all go back to discussing our favorite colors since that's, you know, the serious work of feminism.
I come to feministing to get inspired, get mad and organize my thoughts into action. Your comments have served to give, me, at least, a good swift kiss in the ass and remind me that I can be a hell of a lot more radical, less frivolous, and meaningful in my actions. I do NOT equivocate paint on a wall to violence. All struggles can be ugly, and even if won peacefully, violent WORDS are always exchanged. I took the message to mean, as others have said, "Watch out! We're not defenseless!"
As a side note, someone spray-painted "Obama for America" on my mothers fence and she has made no attempt to paint over it, make a report or complain, even though her neighbors didn't like it. Her only wish? That the artist had done a nice picture too. :-)
I have my own hierarchy for causes too. So I can understand what you are trying to say, but dismissing someone else’s strongly held feelings on an issue because you don’t feel it’s important is the SAME thing that sexist people do. Don’t be like your enemies, rise above them.
Destra, it's the very strength of your feelings about property to the exclusion of your ability to see any gray area in some kick-ass graffiti that offends me so much. And if I sound dismissive, it's because I'm just flat-out tired of hearing this bourgeois privileged bullshit POV. I get that you want to eat your cake and have it too; we all do. Everyone wants a revolution so long as it doesn't happen in our neighborhoods. So I get where you're coming from. But while I don't care if, for instance, you live in a gated community and have lengthy conversations with the homeowner's association about what kind of bushes are OK to plant, you're being absolutist when it comes to other people's resistance. If you really expect a bunch of deferential kow-towing to your obedient, entitled, one-dimensional kumbaya thinking, good luck with that: you ain't gonna get it from me.
You're going to start a revolution through destruction? Hey, it's worked in the past, right? Let's not bother with ideals. Let's just to it the easy way. After all, feminism isn't worth the effort.
You're awesome. I AGREE. FUCK WALLS and FUCK NON-THREATENING MEANS OF PROTEST
You have some nerve to turn this into a white vs. WOC argument. I don't care what color you are -- you're a jackass if you defile someone's private property. And this "anti-capitalist, anti-corporate" bullshit is nothing but an excuse to be an inconsiderate asshole.
And what exactly makes you think that because some people care about their property (God forbid!) that means they put less value on human life? How the hell can possibly reach that conclusion? Open your eyes and grow the fuck up!
Open your eyes and grow the fuck up!
That's, like, super deep.
darby - no personal insults, it's against our comments policy.
Anti-capitalism is an excuse to be an asshole? Wow, what a shortsighted political analysis that is. FUCK YOUR PROPERTY.
I like the graffiti. My guess is it's tongue-in-cheek; implying that women are not docile, aside from anything else.
As for the raging debate on graffiti itself, allow me to just say that I do not give a shit about clean walls. Of any kind. I actually kind of hate blank walls. And if someone tagged my house, well, if I didn't like it I'd just wash it off. And I might leave it up. The whole point of this kind of graffiti is to get out a message that would not be allowed public display otherwise.
Seriously, whoever owns this wall can easily paint over the graffiti if it doesn't come off.
You hate clean walls, I like clean walls. If someone spray painted my house or property I'd be pretty ticked off. Oh, I can just wash it off or paint over it, you say? Well, sorry but I'd much prefer if the person who did the graffiti use his/her own time and money to clean my property.
WHOA AWESOME.
Sometimes the state does forget how powerful we the people are...or maybe hence all the control.
Stop being so damp, its a little bit of writing, men spray their tags all over cities, wtf cant we? I have to see a million billboards degrading women etc, etc so stfu, THE EARTH IS OUR OURS.
I'm somewhat conflicted about this. I'm against pointlessly defacing property, but think public art, particularly things that challenge commonly held views, is neat. I'm aware that's pretty subjective. (As I said, conflicted.)
The message would be far more threatening on an individual, like a button or t-shirt, so to wall works better as a general FYI. I think there's a place for this and it's all the more relevant being illegal. When cities put up graffiti-friendly walls, they've very much missing the point.
I wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't suggest it, but it's pretty neat.
Love it. It's funny and bold and in your face. Woulda been cool if it was a little more aesthetically attractive, I really love beautiful/striking/well thought out graffiti. However, I know that sometimes you just don't have the time to sit there and make it look good before someone alerts the authorities.
I find this conversation on graffiti very interesting. I think one thing that is missing from the discussion or that people seem to be forgetting is that most graffiting is done in poorer neighborhoods on buildings owned by POC, at least that's the case where I live. People in these comments seem to be saying that it's okay because it really just hurts capitalism and the middle class and whatnot, but that's not really true. Every morning when I go to catch to train I see a Latino man spraying over fresh graffiti on his storefront from the night before. It's a small store and I doubt he makes much money, I never see many people inside. It's not in the best neighborhood. Sure the graffiti is pretty, I'd even call it art some days, but it costs that man time and money to fix it, to make his store presentable again so he can run his business and make a living.
Now that just goes for regular graffiti. I can't comment on feminist graffiti as I have never seen any out in the real world. I don't know where that is located. Maybe that is just painted on some faceless corporation's huge building wall.
Exactly.
There are several trends on this thread that I find really interesting. First I think the claims of property destruction are pretty ridiculous. Graffiti is hardly anything to write home about in the realm of property destruction. Also, most street artists who employ the use of graffiti have their own ethics code. Two basic rules are not to paint over other people's work and do not tag personal property like houses. Public buildings are fair game. We are exposed to sexist and racist ads every day in public space, I love that there are artists taking political messages to the streets.
It is important to recognize the power of the people. Currently violent revolts are happening and I hope that the people who are being oppressed do know how to make bombs, because the oppressors certainly do!
I'm an artist, and I like street art, even though I don't really do it. I just find it fascinating how varied street art can be and some of the political and philosophical implications of it. For example, street art is more accessible to the general public than artworks in a gallery, including activist art. Then street art could be interactive and a back and forth between artist and people, like featured in this video: http://current.com/items/88954953/speaking_in_bubbles.htm .Also, a lot of street art seems like a reaction to commercialism and capitalism, so it makes sense it's on a wall instead of in a gallery.
Then there's just the street art that's consisted of words like in this post that just make people think, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Finally, I wonder why the feminist flickr Australian graffiti edition didn't get this much hullabaloo?
As someone who LOVES graffiti, this is awesome (also thanks to whoever lightened it so I could read it). If I had found this, I would have made it my computer desktop background. I think the message is pretty clear (though very rough); I can't say I advocate for veiled threats of violence, though.
I'm got to say first, normally I read all the comments before I post something to make sure that I'm adding something to the conversation, but I'm really tired so I'm just going to comment... Sorry if I'm being inadvertently redundant or beating a dead horse or whatev.
First off, from a couple of the comments in support of this graffiti I'm kinda disturbed. This person is advocating violence (and as much as I hate to bring up the "T" word), which is kind of stupid considering the anti-terrorism sentiment going on in America right now. I'm going to assume this is going on in America, btw, sorry if that is arrogant and someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Under no circumstances should anyone support threating another human life with violence; ESPECIALLY WITH BOMBS. If you have not had the pleasure of seeing the aftermath of a bomb, you'd know that it is not something to joke about. If this graffiti was made "tongue in cheek" (or what have you) then it was in very bad taste. For every person that is supporting THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE of graffiti, I highly encourage you to look up images from the Iraq War, the current conflict in central Africa, or really any instance of bombing to get the idea of what happens when a bomb is detonated. A lot of the victims of bombs don't generally die, but are horribly, horribly maimed.
NOT COOL.
Second point, anarchism is never cool. It's a stupid concept that's preached by teenagers and arrogant college students that don't have an understanding of society (much like Libertarianism, but that's a whole 'nother rant). I live in Minneapolis and had the pleasure of dealing with some "anarchists" who pretty much messed up the RNC protest for the rest of us. Everything was actually pretty good until a group of "them" started smashing in car windows and destroying property for really no good reason. Graffiti never has any power over what you put in it and what the observer derives from it. So it's not really that strong of a political statement, per se, but it does make the artist look like an asshole.
More or less my final point as I can feel my sleep deprived mind shutting off, I don't really feel that emotionally upset against the artist. This piece is not provocative and it's not clever and overall very underwhelming. I'm more upset that whoever made this obviously did so without a second thought and without thinking about the implications. It is a bottle cast out to sea and lost upon the observer. Most people will see the words "bomb" and "fuck off" and get upset for a moment and then ultimately forget about it. Furthermore, this will get painted over or scrubbed off and forgot it. Really, I could care less about this and I refuse to give it any power by acknowledging it as something more than it is. This is equivalent with using the word "nigger" or trying to call someone Hitler. I will reiterate that things like this only have power that we give it.
I will admit then that I just wrote three paragraphs about nothing. Much ado about nothing.
P.S: Sorry for a long rambly rant.
Actually, anarchism is not just a "stupid concept" - there are many people who support anarchism and do not support destruction. Anarchism is not about smashing shit up.
The "stupid concept" is simply that we can live without a government.
There are many sources on Google Scholar that can teach you more about Anarchist movements - stereotyping Anarchists as destructive punks is not really very helpful.
No, but the way most people interpret it is as, "Smashing shit up" sadly. That, and I believe in the necessity of government for a functioning society. So if you believe in anarchism, than we'll just have to agree to disagree.
BTW: I apologize for the generalizations, but I've only had negative experience with self-proclaimed anarchists. Also I'm slightly cranky because I'm sick and it's -35 outside.
That's a rather soft apology for reinforcing a pretty fucking awful generalization. One that people have in fact died for. Ever hear of Sacco and Vanzetti?
This may be shocking to you, but I'm an anarchist and, though my memory may be poor, I don't recall ever destroying anyone's property. And I'm very sorry that those "anarchists" upset your nice peaceful demonstration at the RNC, but you should respect that other people's modes of protest can be different from your own, and you hardly own the RNC protest. You don't have to agree with them, but the angry finger-pointing in the left at people who don't want to have die ins and pray for the cops is getting pretty trite.
Even though I never have identified as an anarchist, I have to say your idea of who anarchists are remains pretty inaccurate.
Anarchists are just as intelligent and aware of the world as any one else, and they're not all teenagers or "arrogant" college kids. Just because you came into contact with a group of anarchists that you didn't like doesn't mean they represent other people with the same political beliefs.
Are there arrogant anarchists? Of course, but arrogant people come in all shapes and sizes.
after reading alllll of the comments and being so fucking disappointed with some of the readers, this is what i have to say.
our entire system is fucked. do you think patriarchy, sexism, racism, classism...that all of that shit is independent from one another? no...its all connected. its all working together to keep us from making any change...and until we can see the connections between all these different fucked up things in our world, nothing really significant can happen.
we can't try to just change one of these things...yes i think its legit for some people to be focusing most of their energy towards a specific 'cause' because there is simply not enough time in one's life to dedicate to ALL this shit. its too overwhelming. but. the end goal should be to reconstruct this ENTIRE system...not just parts of it.
it makes me sad to see that not everyone is aware of this bigger issue of having an ENTIRELY fucked up system...and we can't REALLY fight back if we continue to play by the rules of capitalism and whatnot.
people who graffiti like this are using a beautiful and accessible way to say fuck you to capitalism. to make a statement against commercialism and consumerism which are SO related to sexism and patriarchy and the fights that we are all here to fight. they might not do it in a way that is 'acceptable' but isn't that the point? to fuck over the idea of what is 'acceptable'?
i think it is important to note that their are plenty of different types of graffiti. from what i read, and from the graffiti that i see posted on feministing, no one here is condoning the vandalization of people's homes...i think the places that are being targeted by social justice graffiti artists are commercial properties. and i think thats AMAZING.
as for the comment about the rnc protest. well, i was there too. and i was one of the protesters who held up a sign and walked in the fucking CAGE that they had set up for us while the tons of riot police looked on to make sure that we were protesting the way they wanted to. and when i heard about some of the more crazy stuff that happened, i was SO grateful that there were people who had stood up to those riot police, the fucking republicans that we were protesting, and ALL these fucked up systems that are meant to keep us in our place...because i, like some of the people who are commenting on here, was too fucking afraid to do anything but march on like a fucking lemming.
props to feministing for posting feminist/anti-racist/anti-capitalist graffiti on here regularly. it inspires me to be brave enough to fuck over the system in new and alternative subversive ways. and i hope it can open up some other commenter's minds to break free from the rules that our system has put in place for us.
I highly recommend non-violent activists (the people here who are saying that there are better ways to get one's point across, like MLK or Ghandi) to read How Non-Violence Protects the State. Very enlightening book.
Basically, both non-violent and "violent" tactics should be used in balance together to achieve revolution and liberation. They both need each other.
I put violent in quotations because what many people would call violent, many others do not consider violent. In my opinion, harming property is not violent. Violence is harming living beings, not their stuff.
I agree with what others have said about how graffiti is an effective way of combating patriarchy. Just because it is illegal does not make it wrong, especially because it is the ones in power who define our laws.
I highly recommend non-violent activists (the people here who are saying that there are better ways to get one's point across, like MLK or Ghandi) to read How Non-Violence Protects the State. Very enlightening book.
Basically, both non-violent and "violent" tactics should be used in balance together to achieve revolution and liberation. They both need each other.
I put violent in quotations because what many people would call violent, many others do not consider violent. In my opinion, harming property is not violent. Violence is harming living beings, not their stuff.
I agree with what others have said about how graffiti is an effective way of combating patriarchy. Just because it is illegal does not make it wrong, especially because it is the ones in power who define our laws.
Well, harming property sometimes results in injuries or deaths of human lives. But I guess that's just collateral damage, right?
How exactly does graffiti result in injury or death?
Graffiti doesn't. But I was addressing leafxeater's post in which she (?) mentions "harming property."
When you're walking home from work or school, wading through the ever present male gaze and male dominated world it's a nice respite, empowering even to see some feminist graffiti. I've never seen any that I would consider to have defaced property and if I felt someone crossed the line in invading somebodys personal space (such as their home) then I would consider that a violation and counterproductive to our cause but as it stands, it's awesome!
I love it!
I love it! It is now my profile picture on Facebook.
Darn, I thought my comment wasn't posted so I did it again - sorry about that!
And how dare you compare anarchist ideals with LIBERTARIANISM.
Yuck.
Ya know why kids like the idea of anarchism? Because they havent been fucked over and beat down enough to hope for something less. As a woman in her early twenties, I hope to always maintain my ability to imagine and work for cooperative anarchist ideals.
and furthermore;
graffiti is tight. its like seeing a flower growing through cement cracks or a little girl not taking any shit.