GRAFFITI, BANGSAR, REVISITED

I wrote this piece years back when I was still studying and it gets published somewhere (not the mainstream media, definitely!). Last Sunday, my friend and I went out for drinks in Bangsar and we came across an old friend of mine. It was graffiti of 2 silhouettes holding placards bearing the message “Defend Human Rights”. My friend remarked, “Ini kerja budak pandai ni, ada mesej lagi,” I suddenly remembered an article I wrote about how people sometimes misplaced their anger and could not see what was beyond those graffiti. I smiled as I looked back at the graffiti which was left untouched on the wall. The fact that the owner of the premise allow the graffiti to remain on the wall of his premise since 2004 (re: the public outcry on this issue) opens a wide array of possibilities. Hope? Maybe. A strong convincing “Maybe”.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GRAFFITI.
Gee
January 2004, Malaysiakini.com

NST dated Jan 5,6 and 11, 2004 covered the issue of graffiti – generating public discussion on whether the act is a form of vandalism or work of art.

A majority of the people interviewed (of which the walls of their premises were “chosen” to exhibit the graffiti) would of course feel that such an act is wrong and deserves punishment. In fact, leading human rights advocate Ramdas Tikamdas, who was also interviewed, viewed such act as demeaning to the human rights struggle in our country and said that it took us two steps backwards.

I have come across the notorious graffiti in some of the walls in Bangsar and it was, (and as some of us would agree), done tastefully. Anyone who did it has great artistic talent and that was not all. He or she who also possessed notably good social consciousness and passion for human rights issues, which sad to say, is depleting in our society. So, the question now will be- is the act of spraying the walls of public property in the middle of the night (that is the only “safe” time to do it, I guess) that provokes the anger of the public or is it the glaring messages that those mute but loud graffiti carry, which in depth-is very thought provoking and honest?

Is it because the usual graffiti which carries lovelorn confessions like “I Luv U”, or the equally common admission of existence such as “I Wuz Ere!” or even the vulgar ones which is kind of self explanatory, has set a certain standard for how graffiti should look like or stand for?

For the past years, we stayed silent and relaxed when we encountered these useless scribbles on the toilet walls, because the message is “safe” and “comfortable”. There is a bit of grumbling here and there of course, because now, the owner of the premise must buy fresh paint to cover those dirty spots, but at the back of our minds, we are relieved that this is not the work of some socially conscious youths with an agenda. And, of course, the mainstream media such as NST need not cover that story more than once because graffiti in that context is just a mere prank.

Furthermore, we are left in awe at the growing number of expensive billboards in or cities which are funded by major companies advertising empty messages of their products or modern lifestyles. So are murals, wallpapers and artworks that are confined in galleries- these are OK, too. We prefer the orchestrated mainstream designs to the anonymous work of art done in free-style and provocative manner. To us, the later deserves harsh penalties and the perpetrators are only in for trouble.

From a different perspective, let us continue thinking-were the aesthetic carvings of animals, spirits and nature done by the nomadic cave dwellers on the walls of caves, during the primitive era, graffiti? Not forgetting the GIs during the World War II who made chalk drawings on the tanks and how the Catholic Protestant protesters used to paint slogans on Belfast, Northern Ireland walls. Was that the work of irresponsible people with a penchant for destroying public property or was it, actually, another form of symbolic communication inspired by one’s creativity and struggle to express opinion within a suppressive condition?

Dr. Joe Austin, assistant professor PhD (American Studies), University of Minnesota, a pop culture professor, did extensive studies on the intersections of urban history, youth culture, and popular culture (particularly film) in the United States and also visual productions of youth cultures themselves, such as graffiti and posters.

In his research, he noted “graffiti is a way for people to express themselves when they don’t feel they can publicly”. Among the reasons cited are “because the message is unpopular, public speaking is discouraged or they don’t want their words to be attributed to them”. For better or worse, graffiti allows someone an anonymous voice. Thus the suppression and lack of space to voice up one `s concern due to oppressive laws, control over media and even, dogmatic values in one ` s society is a valid reason of why some people, or specifically youths, who are victims of the above reason resort to graffiti.

In regards to Ramdas `s opinion, with due respect to his position as the president of Hakam, I beg to differ. Although graffiti is more often than not considered as one of hip hop subculture as evident in America, graffiti has, in fact been used as a form of protest against injustice and human rights violations in other parts of the world.

In Nicaragua, graffiti carries strong political message that call for popular mobilization. Whereas since the collapse of the Soviet Union, graffiti bearing anti-America messages and revolutionary slogans were seen on the walls of that city` s historic buildings as a sign of protest by some anonymous public. Let’s not forget Malaysia unassuming “Gerakan 18”, as I like to call it. The number “18” was found sprayed in popular or unexpected spots around Klang Valley few years back. So sensitive was that particular number that members of Parliament raised the issue during parliamentary session. “Some” were of course emotional than the others because the number signifies the number of politicians alleged to be involved in huge corruption cases.

I will not, however deny the fact that graffiti also emerged in the forms of hate speech and gang graffiti which are purely criminal vandalism, used in depicting violence and immoral values, marking the border of the gang’s territory or venting anger towards their enemy. However, in respect to the graffiti, which was highlighted in NST, I could not see how any of those graffiti could trigger or promote negative reactions from and to the public.

To me, those graffiti, like deep scars that survived painful wounds we inflicted on ourselves should stay on those walls as a reminder to all of us that there are so many issues unsolved and justice unclaimed in our country. I am of the opinion that graffiti is also one of the effective ways to advocate social issues. I mean, look at how much publicity it is getting from NST! What with three follow up news and colored pictures to boot!

The very characteristic of those “detested graffiti” – skillful sprays of colors done in style, fun, honest and non pretentious should be accepted as a very sincere manifestation by some sector of the society who supports our struggle for reform and justice. Don’t forget that reform requires us to dare to be different and break tyrannical norms!