The emblem of agency and resistance within graffiti Lira Dasmarinas 11986585 At present, graffiti is reflexively devalued as a form of vandalism disseminated by lower-class citizens championing rebellion against the status-quo. Perhaps the graffiti artist’s disobedience to authoritative institutions is to blame for detachment of social appreciation from its potential for creative integrity. Street art is scarcely praised as an art form that requires intensive artistic skill to execute deeper messages and meanings. This essay therefore aims to open up graffiti’s place as a visual form of cultural practice and the extent to which graffiti employs agentive action. Moreover, it allows for the exploration of issues faced by researchers when analysing graffiti culture. Although interchangeable terms, graffiti and street art are individual art forms occupying public space in that street art is graffiti’s “sub-culture” (DeNotto 2014 p.208). The most common form of graffiti exists as a “tag”, an artist’s signature in a font exclusive to the graffiti community (DeNotto 2014 p. 208). Street art contrasts as a picture-based “materpiece” (Werwath 2006) using symbols and ideas to reach public reception. More decipherable than the tag, street art aims to “beautify the environment” and provoke deeper thought about representation amongst audiences (DeNotto 2014 pp. 208-209). These pieces can require a single individual to a group of graffiti artists (known as a “crew”), and given the “ephemeral” (DeNotto 2014 p. 209) nature of graffiti, artists must perfect and complete their works in limited time and risk the erasure of their craft from public display. For the greater public, street art is a blatant form of vandalism in its political resistance and “authority over public spaces” (Bartolomeo 2001), while some praise its cultural value (MacDowall 2006 p. 471). However, for the graffiti artist, their masterpieces encompass a distinct creative drive that animates the mediocrity of public spaces, whilst being a “tool for the dispossessed to carve out an identity” (Montefiore 2013). Historical context The term “graffiti” is derived Italian graffiare literally defined as ‘to scratch on a surface’ (DeNotto 2014 p. 208). In this light, the roots of graffiti can be traced back to wall-writings by the first “graf- artists” in ancient Rome (Lifer in CCD n.d). The graffiti art discovered in the ruins of Pompeii, however, are at odds with modern “vandalism”. The “re-birth” (Bartolomeo 2001) of graffiti occurred around the 1970’s, when Taki 183 began marking metropolis with his signature, unleashing active “tagging” on subway cars and stations in New York (Lifer in CCD n.d). The decade would become the “Golden Age” of subway graffiti (Cyte in CCD n.d). Dissemination of street art progressed using different methods of aerosol cans and stencils that encouraged the “creation of bigger and better pieces” within the rising graffiti culture. Graffiti culture subsequently coincided with the origins of hip-hop culture (Bartolomeo 2001, DeNotto 2014, Lifer in CCD n.d) and along with emceeing, DJing and B-boying, graffiti was a fourth element that constituted hip-hop expression (Lifer in CCD n.d). The increase of graffiti tagging attracted police attention, consequently ending the epoch of the Golden Age in 1989, when the last notable train plastered with tags was removed. Since then, graffiti has given rise to commercial institutions selling necessary tools for graffiti creation (Montefiore 2013) as well as iconic documentaries Style Wars and Exit Through the Gift Shop (DeNotto 2014) to become a global phenomena (CCD n.d). Although having its own unique Lira Dasmarinas 1 of 6