Graffiti Lives by Gregory J. Snyder

In the introduction of this book, Snyder notes how one must steer clear of making generalizations about the meaning of graffiti; graffiti pieces (masterpieces-- many colors and intricately designed), tags (the writer's alias), and throw-ups (usually in one or two colors and quickly "thrown-up") mean something different for each writer. Some do it for fame. Others do it for the thrill of participating in illegal activity, while others yet use graffiti as the first step of pursuing a sophisticated art career with a monetary reward. Not everyone will understand a writer's graffiti.

This got me to thinking about the title of the book, "Graffiti Lives." It is ambiguous like some graffiti. It could either mean graffiti lives, speaking about the individual lives of people involved with graffiti, or it could mean that graffiti lives(think of the other way to pronounce this) as in graffiti is still flourishing in the cities.

Introduction with References to Chapter One

I think the Broken Windows theory is ridiculous. Basically, police believe that graffiti, petty crime, will lead writers on a path to committing greater crimes as well as encourage crime from others. I think the police focus their time and effort too much on stopping writers when they could be stopping real criminals. Yes, graffiti is illegal, but it is not harming anyone. Additionally, in chapter one, Synder explains how many writers go on to have wonderful art careers after their graffiti lives whether it is being the founder of a graffiti magazine or being a tattoo artist. Studies suggest that graffiti does not lead to bigger crimes. In fact, on page 77, Espo is quoted as saying that "[graffiti] kept [him] out of so many of the typical drug-and-alcohol-related dramas that [his] friends were going through." I truly think that graffiti is a form of art. On page 33 of Graffiti Lives, Pink's tag blew my mind (although it was more of a throw-up with her name as the throw-up). The 3-dimensionality of it was incredible and the shadowing was well done. I can honestly say that I think she is a true artist. And do not get me started about ESPO's (or Steve Powers, as it is revealed late in Chapter 2) creativity!

There is a lot more to graffiti than one would think, as well, which I think contributes to it being an art form. Writers are always developing new ways to write. For instance, a "hangover" was created by literally hanging over the roof of a building and painting upside down!

Chapter One, Getting In

I like how Snyder explains that graffiti is for anyone regardless of class, ethnicity, status, etc. Just like anyone can like a band, a movie, or a book, anyone can like graffiti. However, I did find it interesting that Snyder tries to make the case that graffiti cannot be broken down into two categories: hip hop graffiti and gang graffiti. On page 27 of Graffiti Lives, he explains that hip hop did not even exist when graffiti got its start. In fact, writers do not just like hip hop. Apparently, they like all kinds of music: they like rock and metal, too!

Did you catch my sarcasm? Rock, metal, and hip hop are obviously not all types of music. I am an avid listener of rock, but even I can admit that there are many genres of music he did not mention: country, pop, techno, etc... This brings me to question if it is false that music has nothing to do with graffiti. Honestly, I cannot imagine someone who listens to Theme From a Summer Place (or accordion music that I play) doing graffiti. Maybe it is the stereotype in me-- or maybe it's the fact that the only music Snyder lists is rock, hip hop, and metal...

I do not know what to think about online "flick"(hmmm so THIS is where flickr came from?!) sharing of graffiti and "legal" graffiti walls. Places like flickr do make fame easier to obtain since one has access to share their works with the entire world, but this and legal graffiti walls take away some of the thrill and pressure of having to complete a work in a short amount of time and figuring out a creative way to get noticed. I feel like this was a big part of what graffiti was all about. Graffiti just does not seem the same anymore. One may as well paint "graffiti" on a canvas, post a picture of it online somewhere and pretend it was spray painted on a city wall.

Chapter 2 and Conclusion

Essentially, graffiti is one of those things that one must be open-minded about. I think that page 96, Synder makes a good point: "What is lost sometimes in the cacophony of the debate over whether graffiti is art or vandalism is that when it's art, it is free art. You don't need money, ...the right outfit,..." I believe this is why graffiti still "lives."

I am happy that I read this book (or up to where we were required-- I am definitely going to finish!). I used to think that graffiti was only for gangs (I know, I am still an ignorant child) but now I know it has such a complex history and have the desire to do my own! The fact that "Amaze" was a math major gives me hope that I can be a writer, as well (I am currently a math major!). It seems like a whole new world to me that I want to be immersed in. Hopefully I won't be vanged for being a toy, though.

Freewrite February 23, 2009

Question 2: Are we already immersed in simulation?

I think we are immersed in a different kind of simulation-- one that is at once fake and real.

In my opinion, what is "real" is what goes on in our brains. It does not matter, in my mind (no pun intended), if the physical presence of something is what we encounter. Physical presence can change the meaning of some things, but really, all activity happens in our brains.

Take a computer, for instance. Is it fake? What does fake even mean? It is made up of Earth's materials. It is, constructorily (is this even a real word?) man made, yes, but the Earth made us. When we log onto the computer, we take in new information to our brains. We do interact with other people. The internet is our thoughts from our brains on pixels. The internet is our ideas widely spread and easily accessible. Whenever I log onto the internet, I am exposed to so many brains that I have no excuse not to hold a lot of knowledge in my own.

I see why web 2.0 can be said to be just a simulation and not real life, but it gets my brain to think, analyze, make ideas of my own... it is part of my life.

In Class Discussion

I think deception can work both ways.

I have a friend who I ALWAYS fight with if I speak with her online. This is why we vowed to stop communicating with each other through this medium. We get along extremely well in person, however. I guess this is because of the way she moves/the expression in her voice in person. I am really not sure.

On the other hand, think about murderers. Friends of a murderer always say "He was such a nice guy! He never would have done something like this!" Here, body language was deceptive instead of bringing out the true personality.

However, I could be deceived by my friend's in-person personality/body language and be ignoring her words. You never know!

Freewrite 3

Baron argues in "From Pencils to Pixels" that all literacy technologies go through similar stages. What are some of these stages? How would Baron extend his argument?

I agree with Baron that all literacy technologies go through similar stages. The most striking similarity between all new technologies is that they are first received with resentment and uncertainty.

When writing first came into existence, Socrates was against it. He thought that orality was the most expressive form of communication and that there were dangers in writing. Would Socrates have continued living into this modern time, he probably would have accepted that writing is wonderful.

Baron explains how the telephone was also not initially well received. People were actually fearful that it would invade their privacy. A telephone call during dinner hour was unheard of.

I also know that computers were not initially embraced by the general public right away. It was not until the late '90's that if you did not have a computer, you wanted one. To say that you do not own a computer now would be received with disbelief.

Baron explains another recent example of this phenomenon. He writes that when the spell checker first came out, teachers forbid their students to use it because this did not really help the students learn to spell or honor their true knowledge. However, Baron writes "... now teachers complain if their students don’t run the spell check before they turn their papers in. "

Another similarity is obviously that, although new technologies are not initially embraced, they eventually become the norm. People are just stubborn and set in their ways. If Person A has done Task A by Method A his/her entire life, it is often difficult to change and do Task A by Method B, if that makes sense. One's brain needs to make new connections and re-learn something.

I think that both Baron and Ong note the advantages of new technologies, but I think that Ong goes further and also claims that orality had its advantages, as well. Not only this, but Ong has said that writing is, in a way, artificial. This, I believe, would be their main point of disagreement. Baron never mentions that writing, or any new technology, is artificial. He does well to praise new technology, though.

Proust and Squid write-up

After reading "human beings were never born to read" on the back cover of Proust and Squid by Maryanne Wolf, I was planning on writing an angry entry. I was ready to argue. "What does that really mean?" I wondered. All throughout this book, however, my questions is nicely answered.

On page 11, for instance, Wolf explains that there are no genes specific to reading in a human, as there are specific genes for vision and speech. Further into the book, Wolf also explains how each individual must "re-learn" how to read(I say "re-learn" but mean everyone must learn for the first time). Reading is not pre-programmed into us which explains why some people can read better than others.

Reading fluency largely depends on a child's environment growing up. If a child was surrounded by stories, fairytales, was often read to, then chances are the child's brain will develop well enough to become literate. On the other hand, a child who is often read to and does not listen to language often will have difficulties.

I know this book had nothing to do with race, but I want to take this time to make a comment about it. I once had a friend who thought that minorities were of a lower intelligence than "whites" because he viewed them as not as literate as other kids (this was in elementary school, mind you). I always knew he was incorrect about this and I kind of wish I still knew this friend so I could show him this book! You see, unfortunately, in this country, minorities still do not make an average salary(my friend who studied race issues in a class told me ALL about it). In Proust and Squid, Wolf explains that there is a correlation between salary and an environment in which a child may successfully become literate. Children fall behind because of their environment, which has nothing to do with intelligence or capacity to learn. If I still knew this friend today, I would tell him that and I would tell him how reading is not pre-programmed in us(it has nothing to do with genetics!) so what he thought would not make sense. I know this paragraph that I just wrote seems obvious to all of you reading (or I hope none of you think a race is actually superior to another, if so, you're wrong), but I felt I had to write it because some people actually do exist that feel that some people are smarter than others.

The only time that someone may be more literate than another person when it has nothing to do with environment is, I believe, when someone has dyslexia, which Wolf also talks about. Dyslexia is believed to be a "disorder" where someone's brain is actually wired differently than others, so there are different neural connections which makes reading more challenging. I found it so intriguing that Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, among other famous genuises had dyslexia! Their brains really must be wired in a way that allows for more creativity.

I found it interesting that Chinese is symbolic/logographic rather than our language which is mostly phonemic. The reason I find it interesting is because in 2nd grade, if I did not know how to spell a word, my teacher would tell me to sound it out and however the word sounded, I would try to spell it using the letters I knew that sounded similarly. If I had been learning Chinese, this would not be possible. In Chinese, you either know it or you don't!!!

My last comments will be arguing for and against Socrates' beliefs. I agree that there are dangers in writing-- one may not carefully analyze what they read or take in the wrong interpretation. However, I would argue that this is why we discuss what we read: to clear up any confusion. Taking in different interpretations is also what I find to be the beauty of writing. Different interpretations can show a creative mind. Additionally, I believe that getting a different sense of reality from reading is wonderful. It is good to have an imagination and I find it amazing what the brain can come up with. It feels good to be human.

P.S. ...Because of evolution, I do wonder if one day reading will become pre-programmed in us...

Messages in the Landscape

The differences between official and unofficial text were not immediately clear to me. I read the assignment and wondered how in the world I would figure it out. Well, I do not think there is necessarily a "right answer", but I came up with my own theory anyways by analyzing messages one sees on their way to the Natural History Museum in Washington, DC. As you view my themed pictures of "Trip to the Natural History Musem," I will gradually explain what I concluded and why I concluded what I did.

This is a picture from the metro I rode on my way to Washington, DC. The back of the seat in front of me had a "Borders" price sticker on it. This was obviously not the right place for the sticker. Although it has "official" font (I would assume) and is an "official" price sticker, it is really meaningless because the sticker is on a metro chair-- the chair is not being sold at Borders. Thus, I would classify this as "unofficial text" because it is not in the proper location or on the proper item.

This was also found written in pencil probably by some other previous metro passenger. I am actually not quite sure what this says. I believe some of it is in Spanish. It says "I love tu amo" or "I love to amo." If someone knows Spanish and they could tell me what this means then I would appreciate it. I think it means "I love you friend" or something to that effect.

Basically, I think this is either official or unofficial, depending. I would classify this as official IF the person who wrote it means they love everyone. Thus, anyone who comes across the message is an appropriate viewer. However, if the person who wrote the message was writing it to a particular person, I would classify this as unofficial text.

During the metro ride, I was bored. Thus, I played "Scrabble" on my phone with my friend. This text I classify as ALL OFFICIAL. Not only is "MOTOROLA" on my phone an official text, but it is supposed to be there. It was put there by the company that actually made the phone. The scrabble text is also official because they are part of the game, even though I may choose which words to play.

Ah! DC, I am here! Here is some text in front of the Natural History Museum. I would also classify this as Official Text because it was put there by who owns the property. It is on the Natural History Museum property and is about Natural History. It is also a fact.

Now this picture is from inside of the Natural History Museum. My reasoning for classifying this as Official Text goes along with my reasoning for classifying the previous picture as official text. This is the Natural History Museum and it is this museum that approved and put this text about the "Paleozoic Era" up. It is meant to be there and the message applies to everyone who views it.

In the metro station to go back home, I found this text. It was also put there by who owns the place (the Metro people...) and applies to anyone. If there is an emergency, anyone may press the button for help. Thus, I classify this as Official Text.

Since this is Metro/Museum/DC themed, I thought I might as well take a picture of my all-day metro card (which someone handed to me for free, wow!). This text I would also classify as Official Text, going along with my previous two reasonings. It is made by the Metro, for the Metro.

In summary, I considered something official text if:

1) It was made and approved by who owns the property,

2) The message applies to anyone reading it,

3) It is a fact, and

4) It is where it is supposed to be (the Borders sticker was not) and was, thus, meaningless...

However, I gave an exception to the "I love tu amo." In my opinion, just because the text was not made by who owns the property, the message could still apply to whoever reads it and it still has meaning. I believe meaning overrides the approval of the text being there. It was also a fact (if the person meant it, anyways...)

I did not get many pictures of Unofficial Text, but I thought about it and what I would consider to be Unofficial Text would be

1) An opinion, not a Fact. For instance, "Democrats Suck" would be unofficial text. I do not care whether it was made by a company and advertised/sold as posters or not. If it is an opinion, I think it is unofficial. However, if the latter was phrased "I think Democrats Suck," then I would classify this as Official Text because it is a fact that whoever wrote "I think Democrats Suck" probably thinks Democrats really do suck.

2) If the message is meaningless to some or all people

I obviously did not find much "Unofficial Text" and I think this is because I consider more things Official Text than Unofficial Text. Whether this is a good or bad thing, I do not know...

What do you think? Am I nuts?

Class Discussion February 9th

Sometimes I don't like speaking in class. I don't know why, it depends on the day. I'm just really afraid to talk. So I will write down some of my thoughts here.

I disagree that one cannot really have a conversation with the writing. I disagree that one cannot object to writing. It just depends on what kind of writing it is. With books, well, of course one cannot really talk back to books-- especially if the book was authored by someone who has died since publication.

However, I am writing in a blog right now and if someone wants to object to what I'm writing, they may leave a comment.

Additionally, I also wanted to say that I used to be in Forensics in high school and that required me to memorize speeches/short stories/poems/etc. and then perform them. If a poet from pre-literary times forgot part of what they memorized (even though they don't necessarily memorize anyways), they would be capable of making up things or filling in the holes. I, on the other hand, just stand there and go blank if I forget something. It is embarrassing.

Something I can do, however, is make up music on the instruments I play. I wonder why I can do that but cannot "improvise" speaking?

Update: About writing being artificial, I also disagree. I think if writing is artificial, then so is speaking. Why? Well speaking is a form of communication. It is a medium through which our thoughts and ideas reach others. It is a way our brain can connect with other brains.

The same goes for writing. It is a medium through which our thoughts and ideas reach others.

Just because we need a pencil or pen does not matter. I mean, we could use our blood to write and then it would be more "natural," but I don't think we want to resort to that. Our ideas are still there, regardless of if we speak or write them.

And what about that deaf person that can only read and write? Is he/she forced to live a life of artificiality? That seems a bit ridiculous, to me. No?

AHA! ANOTHER UPDATE!!! AN EPIPHANY!!! I have some good (I think) reasoning why writing is natural. In fact, I have reasoning why writing is more natural than primary orality. You see, in primary orality, people had to repeat things over and over again. Why? Because people would forget otherwise. This means that the human mind was not meant to remember things. It is rare that a person remembers everything they have seen/learned. Writing does for us what our minds are not meant to do... Does this seem like a good theory?

FREEWRITE 2

"More than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness." (p. 78)

Ong means that writing is a gateway to higher intellectual activity, another world. Before writing, poets would describe places, people, and things. They would tell stories with similar themes--it was always the epic hero, for instance. The poets had great memories-- a good poet would know which words fit where, metrically-- but no analysis would take place. Cliches were used over and over in order for the poet to retain information. They were readily prepared phrases to stick into a story where they saw fit.

Once writing came onto the scene, analysis would take place, probably thanks to the linear characteristic of writing. Not only this, but with a writing system, thousands more words could be created and looked up. I believe physics was a result of the writing system, as well. Cliches no longer were necessary as a memorization tool.

I just wrote about how writing has transformed our minds for the better. However, I will note that writing has "transformed" our minds also for the worse. Thousands of years ago, before writing, discourse battles took place in many public places. People were capable of debating well. Poets were capable of telling stories with sprezzatura. Today, many people are afraid to speak in front of a class. Some people are not capable of it. Our minds have slowed down. I, myself, get nervous when I talk to people I do not know. I often find myself searching for words to say and I never find them. It is a lot easier for me to type out my thoughts than it is to speak them. I must see words as "things" instead of sounds and need to see them to think clearly.

There are many other significant inventions besides writing. They include the wheel (haha?) , the Democratic state, the telephone, electricity, the computer, etc. I think the Democratic state evolved due to writing, allowing for better thought and, thus, more creative/logical government. Electricity, the telephone, and the computer also were created from physics/other sciences, etc., which never would have been created if it were not for writing....

Orality and Literacy

The image to the left models primary orality, the age of literacy, and then secondary orality-- something the book, Orality and Literacy, attempts to explain the differences of.
The following is my response/thoughts about the book's ideas:


I find it really interesting that theories exist which claim Homer was not a real man and did not write the Iliad and Odyssey; it reminds me of the theories that claim Shakespeare did not write all, if any, of his plays. I do not know what to believe anymore. However, I agree with Wood in thinking that, if there was a Homer, he was able to produce his poetry because of his great memory.
Basically, oral poets were capable of retaining a lot of information by using technical devices, like cliches, over and over. I do not need to have a great memory or use cliches to remember things because I write things down. Funny enough, I do seem to forget something as soon as I write it down. I have the confidence that writing will not disappear, like how sound dies, and so the information I take notes on from videos, for instance, go in one ear and out the other. Thus, this is where primary orality has an advantage(what happens if I lose my notes?!).
However, whereas people that only know primary orality probably have a better memory than others, I do think people who are literate, or also live in the age of secondary orality, have an advantage as well. Take my brother, for instance. He was always reading as a child and still reads today. I think he has a quick mind when it comes to word associations and different meanings. The following are jokes he made all from yesterday at the family dinner:
My dad: Yeah, he went into the hospital to get heart surgery and came out of the operation without an appendix.
*Less than a second later*
My brother: That's what he gets for telling them he's an open book.



Get it? You know, books have appendixes...

Okay well try this one.
Me: I have to finish my math homework so don't bother me.
My Brother: I don't know why you take math. Math teachers always gave me Problems! That's all they ever do!


No? Still not funny?
Okay one more, I promise...


My mom (upstairs looking for the camera, making lots of noise): If only you guys knew what was going on up here!
My brother: I don't want to picture it. I shudder (shutter) to think of the possibilities.
Me: Yeah, the things that can develop


It took me more time to come up with my response to his joke. I am guessing it is because I never read as much as he did.


Now, this brings up another point that I wanted to get at. As is clear, my brother uses a lot of cliches or common phrases in his jokes. However, he does it in a clever way. I remember reading in Orality and Literacy that scholars were upset when they discovered Homer (if he did exist) used cliches, pre-written formulas in a way. I think Homer also did it in a clever way, and that is what matters. Nothing, I believe, is completely original. Another one of my Honors professors, Professor D'Andrea, once said that everything in literature is stolen from something else in literature. He said stolen. That is right. I think it makes sense, too, because we act a certain way because of our past experiences(I am a Determinist). We only know something if we are taught something, by teacher or book (or nowadays Internet/TV/etc. and in the future maybe some sort of telepathic device, who knows). And, of course, what distinguishes piece of art from another piece of art is rearranging the pieces of the puzzle; something new arises using the tools/literary devices/etc. that one has learned in a different way. There are a lot of love songs, for instance, and so one may ask why artists continue to make love songs when the concept is the same-- the answer is, of course, because it can be expressed different ways and the pieces of the puzzle were arranged differently-- on page 22 of Orality and Literacy, Alexander Pope is quoted as writing that a poet can express "what oft was thought" as "ne'er so well expressed." Essentially, I do not see Homer as less of a poet than before just because it is most likely he used cliches.


Additionally, of course, the other advantage to literacy is it gives a different, perhaps more logical, flow of thought since writing is linear(Orality and Literacy mentioned Plato, as an example, who was the first to seemingly use his brain for analytic purposes). I hold the opinion that society could not have advanced as far as it is now if it were not for writing.
I would write more but I think I have written too much already. Perhaps I will put up a separate/additional response on the reading later!



I will conclude, however, that I find both orality and literacy to have advantages. Do I think one is better than another? I lean towards literacy since the only-literary culture was more advanced than what it used to be, but I think it is obvious that both orality and literacy together are necessary for an even greater society. Today we have a "secondary orality" and our society is seemingly greater than the only-oral and only-literary societies combined. That is probably the formula that promises the most success-- orality and literature combined, despite the fact they are so different (but that's the thing, they both bring to the table more than they could by themselves!).

Helvetica Free Write

The lion is a random image I found off of google because I needed to upload an image. Then I decided to put up an image I actually care about. It's the CD cover from a great band. It also has nothing to do with typography...

Anyways, after watching Helvetica, I realized that it is true that Helvetica is everywhere where big name corporations/companies are to be found. Or, if it isn’t Helvetica, it is a “Helvetica-wanna-be” font. I was not really disturbed by this fact, but I kept trying to analyze why this is so. Letters used to have character. Letters used to have fashion. Now, they are seemingly “neutral.” I think that this is perhaps necessary for some things like newspapers or novels. It is important that the reader takes what he or she thinks is important from what he or she reads. Perhaps a more complex font for novels would bias what the reader reads (well, not that we aren’t already biased by just how an author may phrase something). What I do find to stray from Helvetica and like fonts are CD covers or web page titles. I think this is because music, for instance, is very emotional and so the font tries to capture this.

At the same time, I am neither thrown aback from Helvetica or from fonts with more character. I feel like I am just unaffected by anything anymore. Fonts that try to be different do nothing for me. Fonts that are neutral do nothing for me as well. ”Do I have a problem?” I wonder, “Or is it because of the culture I grew up in?” I have not been able to answer this question thus far. Maybe I will eventually. All I know is that if I had to choose, I prefer other fonts to Helvetica. I kind of relate to that guy who said he needs letters with something wrong with them—they cannot be perfect.

I just find it so interesting that so many people are extremely passionate about fonts and lettering. People are actually A.D.D. about letters on a page. I never knew these type of people existed. I was always passionate about music, but I suppose lettering is just another form of art and music and typography are synonymous with each other. I liked how one man in Helvetica said that just as letter spacings and such are important for typographers, the space between music notes are important for musicians. He was right. That is what I probably thought about most during the week between class—how typography relates to music.