Author: Mark Ecob

16/10/24

Unit 1 / Methods of Investigating

Notes after tutorial 3

Between 2nd and 3rd tutorials I dissected and categorised a full set of 47 graffiti tags from my chosen site:

The tags were categorised by medium, colour, location, orientation and length. The statistical results were as follows:

Results from a total of 47 tags:

MEDIA: Spray paint 34, pen 10, paint 3

COLOURS: Black 28, red 8, yellow 3, pink, 3, purple 1, blue 1, green 1, white 2.

VERTICAL OR SLOPED. Vertical 22, sloped 23, flat 2.

WHICH FACE? NW 1, SW 29, NE 7, NW 6, SE 2, TOP 2

Looking more deeply, I queried whether there was a way of distilling my results into a single tag that was representative of the tags on the entire ramp. To do this, I had to consider it more visually, qualitatively. I looked rti find the right balance of some of these common factors:

• playfulness with typographic conventions like baseline and tracking
• legibility
• length

After finding what I considered to be the most representative tag on the ramp, I felt there was another level of investigation to explore. I wanted to connect to the subject more directly, so I measured the tag, marked an area in which to place it, sourced the materials and began experimenting on both vertical and horizontal surfaces.

This brought a connection with the subject I did not experience using other methods. After multiple experiments, I made deep conclusions about how a tag is executed and the skill it takes to do so.

Armed with this new connection, I looked again at the tag selection and created a visual glossary of the tags on the ramp:

I was able to make practical and social conclusions based on a connection I found between the sense of ownership of tagging something, and its meaning in the community, a group of people claiming a space as their own to realise its benefits to all its users. Earlier interviews and general research provided informative context here, particularly audio and transcript. Conclusions pasted in here, word form below:

FINDINGS

PRECONCEPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

– It is just a skatepark

– A place of antisocial behaviour amongst particularly young people

– Graffiti is vandalism

– Graffiti is indecipherable

– Graffiti is easy to do yourself

METHODS

– Sketching, recording sounds and notetaking all had different value in recoding the site and its users

– Photographing proved the most insightful and effective method

– Digital dissection allowed me to narrow my focus over time

– It produced an evolving data set that I returned to make evaluations and conclusions

– Process has shown that I have had an indirect impact on the form of the tags

GENERAL

– Dissection allows dense areas of graffiti to be categorised

– The breadth and visual value of graffiti becomes clear through dissection and categorisation

– The language is English

– Uses Latin characters and symbols

– Throw-ups take the most surface area despite small number

– Three personified forms 

– Three stickers

– Complete lack of posters/“paste-ups”

– Spray paint or pen

– Most graffiti executed on concrete

– Some graffiti executed on metal areas

– Graffiti on the rear has suffered the most because of grass and moisture

– Graffiti resting on concrete base has not lost degraded because of moisture

– Some small interesting graphics done in pen

– Degradation over time due to weathering

– Graffiti evolves as new items are added

SPECIFIC TO TAGS

– More tags than any other form of graffiti

– Legibility is mixed suggesting encoding

– Majority executed in spray paint

– Thicker lined tags commensurate with spray paint or paint

– Thinner lined tags commensurate with pen

– Black dominant colour

– More typographic forms than graphic or abstract

– Tight tracking

– Mix of upper and lowercase

– Often ignore a baseline

– Symbols and graphics can be incorporated with characters

– Underlines provide added emphasis 

– Tags require skill to execute

– Tags are executed quickly because of spray paint

– Lines suggest both flowing movements and shorter bursts

– A tag acts like a signature 

– Tags are visually impactful when isolated

– Tags are impactful when they are involved with other graffiti

– Layering of tags and other artwork implies community and hierarchy

– Tags mostly are singular not plural

– Most tags situated on south west face of ramp

– Largest surface area for more people to see the graffiti

– Recreation of the tags enable me to connect with the subject more deeply

SOCIAL

The critical investigation of this single ramp within the skatepark has questioned my assumptions about them as a public space and the graffiti that typically covers them.

The ramp acts as a canvas, on which a deep ecosystem of marks in various media exists. It simultaneously evolves and decays. Executing graffiti is both a specialised skill and a claim to the physical space.

There is a clear link between the tagging, the ownership it implies and its importance in the community.

Through interviewing various stakeholders including local councillors, parents, skaters, photographers, park rangers and founders of the Frome Skate Park Project, I have concluded that the skatepark is a multitude of things to different people:

– A place to skate, though poorly designed and insufficient, according to skaters

– A place for physical and mental wellbeing.

– A place where young people may not feel as judged as they do elsewhere in the community.

– A place for artists, though they ‘need more walls to paint on as the old ramps have become layered from at least 5 years of solid painting’

It is not just a skatepark.

CONTINUED STUDY

By reenacting more graffiti marks and interviewing local artists, deeper links could be established between the marks themselves and their social context. More qualitative, visceral research methods like copying could encourage a deeper emotional understanding.

The taggers’ work reaches far beyond the skate park.


————

NOTES FROM AFTER PRESENTATION

I printed and mounted the work in 7 A1 prints, so that we could engage with the tags at scale and in broad context. I showed almost all of my findings and it was received well.

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.

BLOG ENTRY CYS 031024

Cross-year studio / XY.B / Alphabet as Infrastructure

Rebecca and Cai

3/10/24

Group: Mark, Zeina, Virgil, Jingyi, Danxi, Nicks

In a group we discussed questions such as:

1 – How do writing systems change over time, and what aspects of them persist change?

2 – Who controls the alphabets we use?

3 – In what ways can alphabets reflect cultural or personal identity?

In answer, we all contributed to a rich discussion in which we talked about the following:

1 

Danxi described that in China, over time and the increase of the territory through expansion meant that new ways of communicating were assimilated dynastically. So the alphabet(s) were enriched through geopolitical change. We also discussed the impact and technology, from pen to laptop, coding, and its impact on writing systems.

Broadly, we discussed how individuality helps resist change.

2

Initially we spoke about rich, white men that tend to rule the media and tech landscape. Murdoch, Musk, Zuckerberg. But by contrast, younger generations will continually influence language and writing systems through platforms like TikTok and Influencers. I referenced the generational gap between how my son and I communicate with our peers. 

We discussed literacy and access to learning being a factor.

Because of this constant evolution of semantics, structure and media, we concluded that NO ONE controls alphabets and writing systems completely. It’s an evolution in and of itself.

3

Personal names and pronouns

Fashion labels that we all wear, or do NOT wear

Regional dialects

Handwriting

Zeina contributed a very interesting point regarding two local Indian dialects in Southern India, where originally alphabets and writing were done on trees. The shape and form of the trees directly informed the shape and height of the letterforms. Nature influencing human communication.

BRIEF

We chose ‘works only in the dark’ as our random scenario in which to create of set of characters. 

Initially, we discussed sounds combined with tactile elements to communicate. Our first ideas were around the different types of positives and negative across our various language, the tone, noises, idiosyncrasies in how our parents spoke to us as kids. The discussion was fun, and we learnt a lot about each other. It was great.

After a short break, we decided against using tactile elements to use directly to communicate by touch, instead we decided to use them to create sounds to create our alphabet.

Objects included:

– paper

– metal cutlery

– A small bag of polystyrene packing material

– metal nails

– a pen, clicking

– polystyrene shape

To give our project structure, I volunteered to be the subject of a blind direction exercise, where we use simple commands (making up the ten characters in the brief) to direct me across a room and to a chair. The instructions were:

– YES/START – polystyrene bag

– NO/STOP – metal nails

– LEFT – paper

– RIGHT – pen

– UP – High voice

– DOWN – low voice

– SAFE – polystyrene shape

– DANGER – metal cutlery

We asked the class to venture out into the corridor to watch me walk a 5-8 metre path around two stools as obstacle, randomly placed by the group. I was unable to see, but thanks to my group I was able to make it to the chair via the instructions without injury!

TAKEAWAYS

I found watching the rest of the group’s projects informative, it had made me stop and question alphabets and how we use them, what governs the systems I take for granted as I communicate as a human. Its context internationally because of the varied cohort was very interesting. Cai and Rebecca gave some great content, the Norwegian (I think) example was excellent!

The group work was great, I now know people in year 2.

Finally, the most important theme for me across this brief and Methods of Investigating is a process of ‘unlearning’ my automatic responses as a designer, to sort and LOOK.

3/10/24

Unit 1 / Methods of Investigating

Notes after tutorial 1

Location choice: Frome Skate Park, Mary Berry Playing Fields, Frome, BA11

Rationale: I have never skated and have general assumptions of skate parks as associated with antisocial behaviour. This lack of connection with the subject made it perfect  for me to study, a blank slate which would challenge those preconceptions and encourage me to look deeper. It was also close to where I live, essential to have ease of access with my commute to London.

The area has interesting architectural elements in the form of the ramps , which are adorned with dense graffiti over the last 20 years or more. It consists of 4 skate elements:

– Bank with cop quarter, with guard rail

– Pyramid with ledge

– Bench

– Flatrail

– Bowl corner with guard rail

– Double Vert ramp with spine ramp

Located within a roughly 30m x 50m2 concrete area. The also uses 5 benches, 2 bins. Set with grass around it. More context of the area is available.

Initial research included sitting in the space at various times of day. I did rough sketches of the forms people took whilst skating, waiting, playing. Situated close to a school, there were inevitable peaks in how busy the skate park was which was also weather dependent. Sketching and noting down a flow of words associated with the site gave me a feel of connection to it, the emotions it evoked in its user. I recorded atmospheric sounds including playing, wheels on the ramps, shouting, parents talking, an ice cream van. I photographed the site, in broad context and in more detail, cutting up the pieces of graffiti on yeti sides of the ramps, which brought an interesting angle of study. Something to pick up later.

The first weekend of the project, there was an event organised by the Frome Skate Park campaign, which aims to develop and improve the site. I attended, repeating the same process of sketching, recording, noting, photographing people. I also interviewed stakeholders in the project including organisers, families with kids, an attending photographer, local councillors. I transcribed these interviews and picked out evocative phrases and sentences which spoke to me as a raw material.

Alongside my broader research, including obtaining plans for the old and new skate parks and the above interviews, I mined social media content form users of the park. They contain thoughts about the park, and are interesting in their use of language. All these gave me a very deep engagement with the emotional links of the park to the people, positive and negative.

After gathering this material over a week, I started to look ahead to experiments such as a stencil overlay of the positive comments to be used subtly in the space. With the permission of the park keepers I started to spray paint these as an experiment. I also took the audio I recorded and placed it with repeating images of the social media messages in Adobe Premier, which I hadn’t used before. As a medium it’s quite exciting but the results taught me little I didn’t know already, the ‘seeing’ the brief mentioned was elluding me.

After my first tutorial, it was clear that I had engaged deeply with the site and its meaning, but not in its physical form enough, its inherent information or patterns within it. I tended to reach for an outcome rather than concentrating on the process leading ME. This is not surprising after a long career creating outcomes sometimes at the expense of process.

With that in mind, I have made a choice to concentrate on a single ramp to narrow the study. I will be looking at two routes over the next week to look more deeply, one involving deconstruction of the graffiti and another the social observation and patterns therein – how people physically use the site. Therein I hope to choose a single direction and have a data set of sorts, with no attention given to an outcome as yet.

I was advised to look into the dialectograms of Mitch Miller and Oliver Kugler’s environmental portraits as reference points.