• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

SAMO© IS REALLY DEAD1: How the Commercialization of American Street Art Marks the End of a Subcultural Movement Sharing a canvas with an entire city of vandals, a young man dressed in a knit cap and windbreaker balances atop a subway handrail, claiming the small blank space on the ceiling for himself. Arms outstretched, he scrawls his name in loops of black spray paint, leaving behind his distinct tag that reads, “Flip­One.”2 Taking hold in the mid ‘70s, graffiti in New York City ran rampant; young artists like Flip­One tagged every inch of the city’s subway system, turning the cars into scratchpads and the platforms into galleries.3 In broad daylight, aerosol­can­yeilding graffiti artists thoroughly painted the Lower East Side, igniting what would become a massive American subculture movement known as street art. Led by the nation’s most economically depressed communities, the movement flourished in the early ‘80s, becoming an outlet of expression for the underprivileged youth of America. Under state law, uncommissioned street art in the United States is an act of vandalism and thereby, a criminal offense.4 As a result of the form’s illegal status, it became an artistic manifestation of rebellion, granting street art an even greater power on account of its uncensored, defiant nature. Demonized for its association with gang violence, poverty, and crime, local governments began cracking down on inner city street art, ultimately waging war upon the movement itself. As American cities worked to reclaim their streets and rid them of graffiti, the movement eventually came to a standstill, giving way to cleaner, more prosperous inner city communities. 1 The title refers to the infamous Jean­Michel Basquiat and Al Diaz graffiti tag: SAMO©, and their specific piece, “SAMO© IS DEAD,” which surfaced after Basquiat found success in the art world as a professional painter, marking the official end of his career as a street artist. See Appendix A for a photograph of SAMO© tag. 2 See Appendix B for a photograph of Flip­one. 3 See Appendix C for photographs of a New York City Subway in 1984. 4 Phillips, Susan A. "Graffiti." Oxford Art Online. N.p.: Oxford UP, 2007. Oxford Art Online. Web. 7 Feb. 2016. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ In the last decade or so, street art has resurfaced as a relatively celebrated art form in the United States. Today, street art represents a multi­million dollar industry fueled by an increasing public appreciation for the once denounced art form. Ruled by a handful of the most popular artists, street art has been welcomed into the greater art world as the breadwinner of 21st century contemporary art. Praised for its dominating aesthetic and powerful political commentary, modern day street art is revered as “a democratic art form that revels in the American Dream,”5 ​ according to noted sociologist, Gregory Snyder. Seemingly loosening their grip on the graffiti ​ wars they waged in the ‘70s, American cities have begun to allow aesthetically pleasing works to remain up regardless of the vandalism laws set in place.6 In many instances, the works of infamous streets artists are fought over, cut from the streets, and displaced into private galleries. Standing on the shoulders of the massive subcultural movement of the ‘70s and ‘80s, modern American street art has grown up to become just another highly commercialized form of pop art.7 This evolution, from a vilified expression of inner city disorder to a lionized form of illegal pop art, represents the end of an American subculture that began as the antithesis to the art world itself. American street art of the 1970’s and ‘80s functioned as a means of self expression for inner city youth, communicating an overt rejection of the exclusive art world and a rebellion against the local authorities. Facing immense poverty and societal disorder, many of America’s largest cities became cesspools for vandalism and budding street artists. Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and most predominantly, New York City fought gang violence and struggled to 5 Chan, Sewell. "A Sociologist's Look at Graffiti." New York Times 17 Feb. 2009: n. pag. Web. 7 Feb. 2016. ​ ​ 6 Cathcart­Keays, Athlyn. "Is Urban Graffiti a Force for Good or Evil." n. pag. The Guardian. Web. 7 Feb. 2016. ​ ​ ​ 7 For the purposes of this paper, the term “pop art” bears a negative connotation as it is places modern day street art into a more generalized art movement rather than in a subculture of its own. create safe neighborhoods. As a result, the cities quickly became notorious for crime and unrest. New York, in particular, struggled to control the unraveling results of inner city violence and economic depression. Kai Eric, Co­Curator and member of New York City’s Club 57 house band, describes Manhattan during the ‘70s as a cesspool of “art students, runaways and lost personalities.”8 As a whole, the city was crime ridden and ruled by drugs, prostitution, and vandalism. New York City’s War on Graffiti officially began with Mayor John Lindsay in 1972 as an attempt to cripple the street art movement before it took complete hold; however, this preemptive measure seemed to fuel the ubiquitous desire to create street art, as noted by Adam Mansbach of The Huffington Post.9 Although the actual laws on graffiti were left unchanged, the ​ ​ War presented artists with an even greater act of rebellion. By increasing the likelihood of being caught and punished, Lindsay unknowingly helped the movement gain power as an anarchist art form, which Sociologist Adam Mansbach noted in his essay, "Graffiti as Career and Ideology."10 ​ With both the desire for fame and the need to create, the city’s street artists began bombing entire subway cars, leaving the subway caked with multi colored tags and messy drawings.11 At the time, however, the New York Police Department was unable and somewhat unwilling to dedicate the necessary resources to the War of Graffiti; the artists quickly took over the streets, coating the city in tags, murals, stickers, and rollers.12 With a wide array of styles ranging from Hip Hop to abstract, the street art scene of the early ‘80s boomed. The objective of street art quickly became fame; each artist, with their own unique style and content, worked to become a 8 Davis, Tamra, dir. Jean­Michel Basquiat: The Radiant Child. Arthouse Films, 2010. Film. ​ ​ ​ 9 Mansbach, Adam. "New York City's War on Graffiti." The Huffington Post. N.p., 24 Mar. 2013. Web. 7 Feb. 2016. ​ ​ ​ 10 Lachmann, Richard. "Graffiti as Career and Ideology." American Journal of Sociology 94.2 (1988): 229­50. Print. ​ ​ ​ 11 See Appendix C for photographs of bombed subway cars. 12 See Appendix D for examples of the listed graffiti techniques. source of curiosity and infamy for the gargantuan city of artists.13 This vie for fame resulted in the creation of an interconnected community of subcultural artists, working to expand the art form and add complexity to the motivations behind it. In short, the subcultural street art movement flourished, gaining both power and attention as the ultimate form of anti­art. In the late 1970’s, an unusual tag surfaced in Lower Manhattan known as “SAMO©.” SoHo was thoroughly tagged with strange surrealist poetry that said things like “SAMO©, another day, another dime, hyper cool, another way 2 kill some time,” and “microwave x­sistence, ‘Big Mac’ certificate for x­mas ­SAMO©.”14 Just about everyone pondered the strange graffitied phrases and wanted to know who SAMO© was. Described as “oblique pieces of poetry”15 by filmmaker and friend, Michael Holman, the SAMO© tags were an anonymous collaboration between Jean­Michel Basquiat and Al Diaz. An abbreviation of the phrase “same old shit,” SAMO© was appeared to be a message intended for the art world. Unlike much of the circulating street art, “the SAMO© tags had poetry­like content,”16 proposing a political or philosophical question in a messy, yet noticeable style. Basquiat eventually claimed ownership of the tag in 1979, however, the SAMO© tag soon came to its death following Basquiat’s acceptance into the greater art world. After officially being offered a gallery space for his paintings, Basquiat had become a part of the establishment he criticized so forcefully in his street art. The Manhattan community of struggling street artists, including Diaz, rejected Basquiat’s attempt to be a part of both the art establishment and the anti­art world, ultimately resulting in Basquiat’s final tag, “SAMO© IS DEAD.” This last piece of street art marked Basquiat’s arrival 13 Lachmann, Richard. ​ 14 Davis, Tamra. ​ 15 See Appendix E for examples of SAMO© street art. 16 Hoban, Phoebe. Basquiat: A Quick Killing in Art. N.p.: n.p., 1998. Print. ​ ​ into the art world, however, it also expressed the huge void between commercialized art and subcultural art in 1970’s and ‘80s. Similarly, Keith Haring began his career in the New York City subways, drawing highly political chalk murals that focused on subjects of controversy such as war and sexuality.17 While murals remained a large part of Haring’s later works, he slowly stopped creating uncommissioned street art as he became more and more famous in the art world. By the mid ‘80s, Haring had become increasingly involved in his advertising campaign for Absolut Vodka: “Absolut Haring.”18 The advertisements combined Haring’s iconic style with Absolut’s distinct brand, fusing Haring’s art with the advertising industry and thereby, commercialism itself.19 Bordering on an anarchist jab at modern America, the anti­art movement derived its power by rebelling against all establishments, especially the greater art world.

Load more

  33

Copy Link