Unit 1 / Methods of Investigating
Notes after Tutorial 2 (8/10/24)
This week’s presentation showed a concentration on one single ramp within the skate park, the ‘bank with cop quarter’, and a choice of one method of investigation – dissection.
After researching types of graffiti (tag, throw-up, paste-up etc), I categorised the various pieces of graffiti over the four faces of the ramp using a process of dissection. This involved taking detailed photographs, cutting out each item of graffiti, experimenting with different layer styles in Adobe Photoshop, image inversion, masking to decipher forms from one another. Though never truly exhaustive because elements can remain completely hidden or significantly weathered or disrupted, it was enough to mine each face of the ramp to break out its contents.
During the process I felt like an archeologist. The ramps are over 20 years old, with myriad layers of marks and affecting by weathering over time, making the process even more involved. There were ‘eureka’ moments when forms or words suddenly jumped out. I am mindful of this almost archeological process and my influence upon it, unintentional editing can happen.
After categorisation, I left the material overnight in order to look at it afresh the next day. This enabled me to start digesting it, and I made the following unedited notes.
‘Observations
– more tags than anything else, come very prolific – NONE/NONER and ROAR found often, they are part of a group named the EMBER BOYS and can be found grouped together. Most often done in a black spray paint.
– black and white dominant colours for tags
– more typographic forms than graphic/abstract
– throw-ups take the most surface area despite their small number –
approx 12
– three personified forms
– just three stickers, lack of paste-ups
– generally spray paint or pen, painted tags on metal areas
– some old throw-ups have maintained their quality
– graffiti on the rear has suffered the most because of its situation? Closer to grass and moisture, and yet the degradation provides a really nice visual quality
– graffiti on the sides has maintained quality
– quality of throw-ups varies
– some interesting graphics, small, done in pen
– real degradation over time, a lot lost in translation
– the graffiti seems to need its neighbours to work, it needs to sit in the busyness to be effective? Is there strength in numbers?
– stripping back illos to black, most common form, means all sorts of illustrative applications
– possible to make short phrases or pieces of communication combining symbols, throw-ups and tags. Interesting!’
Also, more deeply:
‘What do I see?
There is an ecosystem in graffiti.
My preconception of it being impenetrable, a mess even, was wrong because I was judging, not seeing. By dissecting it, cataloguing it, then restoring and reassembling, I can see that combining the graffiti is itself a method of communication. Initially I felt like an archeologist, exploring and finding new things and then I quickly felt like a trespasser and zoomed out.
It has a life of its own as a composite, ever-evolving. Between days of studying the ramp, new artwork would appear which was both frustrating and beautiful!
Even though graffiti art can be a competition on a wider scale, and that there is a hierarchy within it of standard, risk taken etc. This single ramp has shown me that it holds a composite art form new to me. It’s not a mess, it’s a deep, layered entity that communicates visually and hence emotionally. Can the graffiti of the park itself reflect the frustration of the park users? Throw-ups and tags, and these clearer lines below are all expressions of emotion, both positive and negative.’
Once I had prepared this material and made conclusions, I asked myself ‘what next?’. So, ignoring multiple ideas for yet more outcomes, which was my issue from Tutorial 1, I simply combined elements, grouped them, attempting another layer of investigation.
I found this was a doorway to more experiments and that the combinations of graffiti elements formed their own language.
I found these really interesting, and wondered about looking at the rest of the park for inspiration, but that is where I stopped before Tutorial 2, on Tuesday 8th October.
——
Post-tutorial notes, 9/10/24
I had a great tutorial yesterday. I felt like I was on the right track going in.
Similar to the other students in the group, there is yet another layer of investigation to do in order to get this enquiry to fruition. I need to balance this with practicality over the next week to meet the deadlines for all the material, amongst my other commitments.
The tutor and the group approved of my intent to use the dissection method as a kind of graphic archeology. I find this fascinating. Angel, a group member, felt like the later graffiti was a conversation with the earlier graffiti, like talking to a person from the past. I found this really insightful.
We discussed classification of the graffiti at length and the idea of creating a kind of language out of it, but that too few like pushing for an outcome rather than the natural conclusion of an enquiry, focussing on graphic design as research driven.
With that in mind, my intent is to dig deeper into the material of the ramp, ideally the tags, as they hint at the next level of detail. I will consider zooming in further, and categorising the tags by more detailed rules such as position on the ramp, what media was used, its orientation, its clarity, what texture is it on (metal or concrete).
This will give me some material to consider, I will then repeat the process of last week and look with fresh eyes to see what I can discover. Therein, I’ll consider a final outcome and its render. I am thinking some kind of typographic response, a glossary or index of sorts of the graffiti on the ramp, perhaps a set of characters and/or glyphs based on the material.