Writing 2: Scales of Social Space
Social spaces are crafted by human to human interactions. These spaces often harbour sub-cultures which require more work to maintain and upkeep practices. Cultures that are outside of societal culture can often become lost in the landscape in which they inhabit whether digitally or in reality. These people within these spaces create artifacts that are left behind that help define the group’s scope of practice and influence. According to C. D’Ignazio in Art and Cartography, “There is … a rich history of artists who use the language of maps to chart emotional, interpersonal, or imaginary territories.” There are landscape artists who map their local landscape through immense detail like José María Velasco of Mexico. His provoking paintings of the Valley of Mexico created enthralling scenes that created an almost prideful ownership and inhabitation of the land — admiring it for its agricultural beauties and such. The benefit of these artist’s work is they define a culture and their connection to the space they live in. Additionally, they offer snapshots into the influence they have in changing the space around them. Artists like José exist today and have the ability to meld the lines between the human psyche as it connects to the world or their perception of reality. What happens when this art is removed from its territory? The mapping of a space and its contexts can change depending on where it’s presented.
A more contemporaneous example of mapping is graffiti. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, “graffiti” are “words or drawings…in public places.” This definition is an external perspective of these images. In the documentary Style Wars, there was a political movement to get graffiti artists to stop vandalizing spaces with the slogan “make your mark in society, not on society.” There was this territorial war on space — artist to artist and government to artist. This caused graffiti to be layered on top of each other or covered up entirely. With the popularity of graffiti rising in the art community and lowering on the streets, there was a movement to bring these paintings to gallery walls. A woman who visited to see the graffiti exhibit stated, “ it’s almost as though these pieces were peeled off the train and put onto canvas.” The urban art style was being moved to controlled, indoor environments— stripped of the context and environmental territory in which it was born. No longer do artists fight to define themselves on street infrastructure. Now, they present their work in a space in which their culture is not native to; therefore, losing contextual foundations that define their practice. In urban settings marking territory, finding space, and expressing their individuality was important to these artists and defined their culture . While on a trek to their favorite graffiti spot, one artist states that “this is a beautiful spot to do pieces on…hardly no writers know about this place.” This secluded underpass was a space where his group could have a blank canvas to express their creativity. The rebellious and space-aggressive nature of street graffiti defined it both in style and location. Now that they have been accepted into galleries, they define a culture in fragments stricken of the territorialism and environment which created it. Therefore, the mapping of space and its perceptions changed because of place.
Resources:
D’Ignazio, C. “Art And Cartography.” Elsevier eBooks, 2009, pp. 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-008044910-4.00004-3.
Silver, Tony, and Henry Chalfant, directors. Style Wars. Public Art Films, Inc., 1983.
