Narcissism + art = graffiti?

Identity is a complicated thing. What Nancy Macdonald has taught me is that there is a distinction between what and who you are. Her method of demonstration? Graffiti culture.

While narcissistic in nature, graffiti is as much about development of self and identity as it is about becoming known. In graffiti culture, ‘writers’ create an alter ego using a tag, a sort of analog username. Like the digital world, the alter ego creates a distinct separation between the virtual self and the actual self. There also exist boundaries, in that the different ‘selfs’ may not intersect. Distinguishing characteristics that exist in the actual realm hold no ground in the graffiti world. Issues of race and image are unimportant among writers. The exception to this seemingly accepting subculture is the basis of gender. Unless you are female, “you are  what you write” (313).

This form of identification through actions is perhaps the purest form of identification, is it not? People are judged on their ability to create powerful artwork instead of their appearance. Even shy people find an outlet in graffiti, as they feel it provides an escape from the need to represent one’s self. The art serves that purpose instead. In this manner, a freak can be king. If that freak can make art, that freak can be respected. Cultural capital comes from external actions rather than social expectations.

One graffiti artist described graffiti in three words: “Look at me.” I find there is a definite trend of narcissism among some street artists. “Graffiti artists are literally honoured for nothing more than being - for existing” (314). There are those who create art and there are those who just inundate the urban environment with their name. And most combine the two.

Perhaps the most insightful yet troubling concept is the duality in the concept of being known. I frame it like this: writers want to be known of, but remain an enigma. They want to be famous, but unknown. They enjoy their fame from behind a disguise.

Once again, the subculture concerns itself with an oppositional stance to mainstream culture. There is a necessary attitude and aggressive stance to graffiti art, because it is intended to make a powerful statement. This aggressive identity serves “as a communication to the world about how one is feeling about oneself and what it is about oneself one would like to advertise” (316). This image does not have to be represented by the writer. In most other subcultures, the members are concerned with their own style, and how they dress themselves. Graffiti artists are concerned with dressing their artwork instead.

The temporary nature of graffiti is also important to the importance of identity to the members of the associated culture. Because their work and their identity by extension is perpetually threatened, graffiti artists feel the need to defend and proliferate their image, much like other cultures feel the need to defend their identity and distinguishing characteristics.

This culture is far more than a bunch of rowdy kids with aerosol paint cans. I feel as though it is one of the few authentically underground subcultures.