Racking: stealing materials. Maybe you rip off your hardware store for some paint, maybe you snag that big marker from the corner shop. I've heard that some people think it's not legitimate graffiti if you pay for your stuff. I disagree--to me, it's the act and the art itself that make it graff, not the preparation--but I do think racking supplies can be justified under one circumstance. First off, though, I'll get into times when I think it's not okay.
How about stealing from huge chain stores? Does the hardware section in the closest Wal-Mart have spray? That should be okay, right, giving such a horribly flawed corporation the finger? Sort of. You should fuck with Wal-Mart in any way you can. They underpay and mistreat their workers; they labor to weaken standards for organic food which leads to environmental abuse; they're currently in litigation for several accusations of sexism in their business practices; they encourage cultural homogeneity; and they use the property they buy irresponsibly, vacating one enormous, unsustainable concrete box and leaving it empty because it's cheaper to build a bigger one next door when they decide to expand. However, their despicable practices go further than that. Theft from their stores does not pull pennies from the pockets of their board of directors. The damage you do only goes so high--local managers are about as far as you'll get, and that's not too cool. I suppose if the local manager is a wealthy tool, you might be more or less in the clear, but that's a doubtful possibility. Stealing from big-box chains isn't as good as it sounds. Tear 'em down, yes--it's basically our responsibility as human beings to strike them from the face of the earth. But stealing paint isn't the way.
So you know, Wal-Mart is called Seiyu in Japan, Walmex in Mexico, and ASDA in the UK. Damage them there, too.
How about 'cause it's more intense, more dangerous, more exciting? Come on. You're about to go sneak through the city, dodging society's various manifestations of so-called security to create subversive art and fight the battle against the wrongful miscalling of this artform "crime." I think the extra potential thrill is unnecessary and unkind. Graffiti offers a (largely) singular opportunity to express yourself without mediation by a corporation, a government, a school system or a repressive family. Legitimizing this deeply important form is, I feel, better helped by acting with kindness and respect, and robbing people who aren't rich is neither kind nor respectful in my book. And to those who might argue that graffiti is vandalism, and that's also unkind or disrespectful, I direct you to my first entry here, where I explain my thoughts on the nature of public space. I'll elaborate on those ideas in future writing.
The one acceptable reason: you're broke. Not "Man, if I pay for these markers I won't be able to get that hoodie I've been looking at!" Not "Shit, the cans to go out piecing are gonna cost me like fifty bucks--I was gonna go dancing on Saturday, drinks'll be expensive, I'm not paying for these!" No, I mean "Wow. I can buy this paint and show everyone who walks down my street what I think and feel, or I can pay utilities this month." Or "God, I really want to get my name up--they've been buffing everything lately, this neighborhood looks like it died. But my kid needs new shoes. No way can I afford new mops this month." In cases like this, where it really is a one-or-the-other choice, and the price for writing is dire, rack what you need.
But do it responsibly.
Like I explained, hitting up big chain stores isn't as sweet as it might seem; it's sure better than doing your local corner store, though, and they might have a bigger selection, besides. If you can avoid hitting small shops, do it--this is graffiti, for and by individuals. It's not a corporate artform, and corporations don't need artists helping them crush out their brave competition.
What if there's no alternative? If I can't pay bus fare to make it out to Wal-Mart, I have a desperately important political insight that will be most effective conveyed in fat marker on bus stops, and I just spent my last five bucks on groceries? Then what?
Well, in that case you've gotta do some hard thinking. Is the store you'd steal from struggling? Might your theft be the last straw, the final insult that makes the owner close up shop? On the other side, will the piece you make with what you've stolen be so good, so full of meaning, so important to your neighborhood or your city, so affecting of change that it will outweigh the wrongs done to the shopkeeper? What if you're going to create something that will make "Crack is Wack" look like some old academic allegorical painting, very pretty but very shallow? Well, that's hard. It's an ambiguous area, and there's sadly no standard. Compare the options, listen to your heart, act with excellence, and learn from the results, whatever they are. Choose well!
Input would be appreciated. I've never racked, so I don't speak from a position of experience on this issue. Thoughts are most welcome. Until next time, keep it indelible.
2 comments:
I think the thought of hurting big-box stores (BnL!) and of theft are very different.
Theft is theft. Whether or not you do it for a good cause (art! poverty! desire! politics!), it is theft. Regardless of vendor, materials have value. When they are stolen, the value decreases. That drecrease has repercussions- does it just hurt the bottom line? Does it get a worker fired? Does it force other workers to crack down and grow more suspicious of customers?
I don't think using "I hate wallmart" as a justification for theft is valid. No, I'm not a fan of the commodification of America. I think the world that Walmart supports is a dirty, ugly, monoculture, homogenized shithole, that promotes disrespect to workers, employees and customers. But people who buy from Walmart are still people. And people who work at Walmart are people. And the people who break their ass for the pennies Walmart throws at them... they're people. Rackin is stealing from those people. It isn't promoting a paradigm shift to help them.
Love,
A
Agreed. If I seem to be advocating theft, or touting it as an effective means to alter one of the many flawed systems we live through--in this case, Wal-Mart and its compatriots--then I apologize, my intent was in fact the opposite. As I wrote, I see theft only as an acceptable option in cases of poverty, and even then I feel it should be a last resort, carefully considered and thought over.
Post a Comment