Graffiti as Career and Ideology

Author(s): Richard Lachmann

Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, No. 2 (Sep., 1988), pp. 229-250
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780774 .
Accessed: 17/07/2014 17:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Graffiti
as Career and Ideologyl
RichardLachmann
Universityof Wisconsin-Madison

This paper identifies the organizationaland ideologicalsourcesfor

the creationand structuralevolutionofNew York Citygraffiti art.
The stages and typesof graffiti careersare traced throughinter-
views with 25 graffiti writersand theirgalleryand gang patrons.
The ethnographicanalysisservesto build a framework forjoining
the usuallyseparatesociologicalliteratures on subcultures,deviant
careers,and artworlds.Geographicaland social proximity to other
writersis theprincipaldeterminant ofentryintograffitiwritingand
of whetherthat activitydevelops into a career. From theirsocial
relationswithotherwriters,graffiti writersgain a senseofaudience
and a beliefthat graffitiwill give themfame. Recently,police re-
pressionand the recruitment of a fewwritersto paint graffitican-
vases forsale in gallerieshave fragmented the graffitiart world.
The conclusionsuggeststhatmodifications in labelingand subcul-
turetheoriesare needed to explainthe causal connectionsbetween
social relationsand ideologicalmeaning.

Graffitiwritingon public propertyis illegal in New York City. Still,

graffitiwritersappropriatepublic space in an effortto win fame for
themselves.This study,based on interviewswith graffiti writers,ana-
lyzes how theycreatetheirartifactsand careersthroughsocial interac-
tions among each other and with patrons,audiences, and the police.
Alongwithtracingthewaysin whichwritersand otherscometogether to
create the social organizationof graffiti, this studyis concernedwith
understanding how the contentof graffiti is formedand transformed by
graffiti
writers'social interactions withtheiraudiences.
My analysisof graffiti as an illegalsocial activityfortheproductionof
famethroughart providesan occasion to build a framework forjoining
1
I am gratefulto Paul DiMaggio,David Featherman,WarrenHagstrom,Charles
Halaby, Allen Hunter,Gerald Marwell, Douglas Maynard,Pam Oliver, Leslie
Rothaus,HarrisonWhite,ErikOlinWright, and theanonymous reviewersofAJSfor
comments on earlierdraftsofthisarticle.LynMiller-Lachmann has contributed
much
to theconception and presentation of thisresearchand helpedfinda numberof the
interviewsubjects.Requestsforreprints shouldbe sentto RichardLachmann,De-
partment of Sociology,1180Observatory Drive,Universityof Wisconsin,Madison,
Wisconsin53706.
? 1988by The University
of Chicago.All rightsreserved.
0002-9602/89/9402-0001$01.50

AJS Volume 94 Number2 (September1988): 229-50 229

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

the usuallyseparate,thoughcomplementary, sociologicalliteratureson

subcultures,deviant careers, and art worlds. Howard Becker (1963,
1982) and others(Best and Luckenbill[1982] review this approach to
deviance)have shownthattheseemingly idiosyncraticactivitiesofviolat-
ing social normsand producingart are structured by the deviants'and
artists'interactionswithothersengagedin the same enterprise.Yet the
verysimilarity in thesociologicalanalysesofcriminaland artisticcareers
pointsto theway in whichsuchstructural studiescan slightthecontentof
culturalpracticesand products.That more"ideological"side of analysis
is emphasizedin the primarilyBritishliteratureon subcultures.How-
ever,thatwork,in turn,loses touchwiththeorganizationalsourcesofa
subculture'scohesion.These partialunderstandings ofdeviancewillhave
to be joined ifwe are to understandhow graffitiwriterscreated,and then
lost,the organizationaland ideologicalbases forthe allocationof fame.

DEVIANTS, ARTISTS, AND THEIR AUDIENCES

Subwaygraffiti writersare involvedsimultaneously in an artworldand a
deviantsubculture.Howard Becker (1963, 1982) has taughtus thatwe
can understandboth deviance and artisticcreationas the resultsof two
sortsof social interactions.First,novicesmustlearnthemotivationsand
conventionsforengagingin theseactivities.Second,deviants'and artists'
careersare furthered or thwartedby the ways in whichaudienceslabel
and reactto themand theirendeavors.
The conceptofcareeris usefulfortracingtheinfluences ofmentorsand
audiences on writers'involvementwith graffiti.Becker found that a
marijuanauser "mustlearnto use the propersmokingtechniqueso that
his use ofthedrugwillproduceeffects in termsofwhichhisconceptionof
it can change"(1963, p. 47), just as professionalartistsmustacquire"the
technicalabilities,social skills and conceptualapparatus necessaryto
makeit easyto makeart"(1982,p. 229). Thus, Beckerwouldpredictthat
noviceswould need to learnthetechniquesfor,and desirability of,writ-
ing graffitifroman alreadyskilledmentor,and therefore social and geo-
graphicconcentrations ofgraffitiwritersshouldbe reproducedovertime.
Deviants'and artists'careeropportunities are determined in largepart
by the ways in which they are labeled by people outside theirsocial
milieus. Indeed, forBecker, "Deviance is not a qualityof the act the
personcommits,but rathera consequenceoftheapplicationby othersof
rulesand sanctionsto an 'offender.' The deviantis one to whomthatlabel
has been successfully applied; deviantbehavioris behaviorthatpeopleso
label" (1963, p. 9). Similarly,"large-scaleeditorialchoicesmade by the
organizationsof an art world exclude manypeople whose work closely

230

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Graffiti

resembleswork accepted as art. We can see too, that art worlds fre-
quentlyincorporateat a laterdate workstheyoriginallyrejected,so that
thedistinction mustlie notin theworkbutin theabilityofan artworldto
accept it and its maker"(1982, pp. 226-27). As a result,Becker would
predictthe characterand consequencesof graffiti writers'careersfrom
the labels thatadhere to themand theirworks.
We can gauge the effectsof labelingon graffitiwritersby comparing
their"deviant"withmoreconventionalartisticcareertrajectories.Luck-
enbill and Best findthat police intervention disruptsstable careerlad-
ders. As a result,"deviantscenesusuallylack establishedstandards"for
allocatingrewardsand determining success (1981, p. 199). In contrast,
audiencesthatconsume,and institutions thatdistributeand display,art
encourageartiststo produce worksthat conformto the aestheticstan-
dardsoftheirartworld.Whilepoliceseekto cutshortthecareersofthose
theylabel deviant,audiencesenhancethelongevity and rewardsofartists
who conformto the conventionsof theirpreferred aesthetic.
The career is a usefulconceptformeasuringthe effectsof mentors,
police,and audienceson devianceand on theproductionofart.In Beck-
er'sanalyses(1963, 1982),successfulapplicationofa label rendersdiverse
objectsand actionssociallyequivalentand locks theirproducersintoset
careersas professionalartistsor as deviants.Indeed, muchof the previ-
ous scholarlyand popularworkon graffiti has tendedto ignorethediffer-
ences among graffiti writersand theircreationsand eitherhas champi-
oned all graffitifromscrawled obscenitiesto elaborate murals as art
(Mailer 1974) or has viewed graffiti writersas "part of one world of
uncontrollablepredators"(Nathan Glazer, quoted in Castleman 1982,
p. 176). For Becker,labels are generatedin responseto the institutional
imperativesof art worldsor police bureaucracies;theyare arbitrary and
do not reflectany quality intrinsicto the actors and theirproductsso
labeled. Becker's model does not identifya mechanismforexplaining
whyparticularactorsand activities,and notothers,are labeled deviant,
nor whythe aestheticstandardsof art worldschange.
By examiningthe contentof a subculture'sself-expression, British
Marxist scholarswho view deviant subculturesas "symbolicformsof
resistance"(Hebdige 1979, p. 80; see also Hall et al. 1975; Willis 1977)
explain a labeling process that otherwiseseems arbitrary.Following
Gramsci(1971, pp. 210-76), Hall defineshegemonyas the"containment
ofthesubordinateclasseswithin. .. definitions ofrealityfavorableto the
dominantclass . . . [which]come to constitutethe primarylived reality
. .. forthe subordinateclasses" (1977, pp. 332-33). Membersof subcul-
tureschallengehegemonyby drawingon the particularexperiencesand
customsof theircommunities,ethnicgroups,and age cohorts,thereby

231

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

demonstrating thatsocial lifecan be constructedin ways different from

the dominantconceptionsof reality.
Hebdige (1979, pp. 90-99) and Clarke (1975) contendthat it is the
counterhegemonic characterof a subculturethatprovokesa reactionby
police and media. Those "ideological"institutions seek to "situate[the
subculture'sresistance]withinthe dominantframeworkof meanings"
(Hall, quotedin Hebdige 1979,p. 94). Fromthisperspective,thedeviant
label servesto highlighttheillegalityofgraffitiwritingand (falsely)linkit
with violentcrime. Oftenmore effectivein denyingsubcultureslegiti-
macy as alternativesocial ordersis what Hebdige calls "the commodity
form"(1979, p. 94), an appropriationof subculturalartifactsfromtheir
communitiesforsale to the generalpublic. Thus, subway graffiti is re-
duced to a new fashion,fitto be sold on canvases, T-shirts,or coffee
mugs.
Hall et al. contendthatthe mix of repressiveand co-optiveresponses
bypoliceand mediato subculturesis determined by,and variesaccording
to, thecontentof each subculture'sideologicalchallengeto thedominant
culture'shegemony.In contrast,for Becker, the intrinsicdifferences
among subculturesare overwhelmedby the relativelyuniformconse-
quencesofbeinglabeled deviant.As a result,a Beckeriananalysiswould
look forthemeaningof graffiti in theartisticand deviantlabels attached
to themand would explaina writer'scommitment as a product
to graffiti
of his ties to mentors,colleagues,and audiences. Hall et al. would see
working-and underclassand minorityyouths'attractionto graffiti as
evidenceof theircounterhegemonic character,begging the questionof
why not all youthswith those backgroundshave the same ideological
affinity and structurallinksto a graffitisubculture.The analyticaltradi-
tionsexemplified by Becker and Hall each offera partialunderstanding
ofthesocial forcesthatgenerategraffiti writers'artifactsand careers.The
taskforthisstudyis to identify whereeach approachis usefulforspecify-
ingthecausal connectionsbetweensocial relationsand ideologicalmean-
ing.

SOURCES AND METHODS

This studyis based primarilyon interviewsand participantobservation
conductedbytheauthorduringFebruary-May1983and January1984.I
interviewed25 graffitiwriters.The sample was not selectedrandomly;
rather,an effortwas made to findwritersat different pointsin their
careerdevelopment.Since one of the goals of thisstudyis to determine
the extentand nature of networksamong writers,and with patrons,
audiences,and police, subjects were encouragedto referthe authorto

232

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Graffiti

otherwriters.Subjects were also foundthroughart galleryproprietors,

schoolteachers,and gang leaders,who are patronsof graffiti art.
Subjectsfromamongthe eliteof graffiti writerswerefoundby asking
artdealersand collectorsforthenamesof"graffiti artists."Each ofthose
informants producedan almostidenticallist of about 20 artists.Six of
those graffiti writerswere interviewed,firstat art galleriesand at the
homeof an art collector,and thenelsewhere,away fromtheirpatrons.
The vast majorityof graffitiwritersare unknownto galleriesand
collectors.Rather than attemptto sample this populationof unknown
size, I interviewedwritersfromtwo sectionsofBrooklyn:Williamsburg-
Navy Yard and Crown Heights.Those neighborhoods were chosenfor
thepracticalreasonthatmyfirstcontacts,who gave me entreeto graffiti
writersand to theirpatronsin streetgangs, were located there.Those
initialinterviewsyieldedfurthercontacts,which allowed me to gain a
sense of the networksamong writersand patronsin the two Brooklyn
neighborhoods, as mycontactswithgalleryownersallowed me to trace
the networksat the apex of the graffiti art world.
The interviewswere looselystructured.The writerswere asked how
theybecame interestedin graffiti, fromwhomtheyhad learnedthetech-
niques ofgraffiti writing,withwhichotherwriterstheyhad worked,and
on what sortsof spaces (e.g., subway cars, schools,canvases) theyhad
writtengraffiti. The writerswerealso queriedabout anyencounterswith
the police, whetherthey had received pay for any of their graffiti,
whethertherewere any othergraffiti or nongraffiti artworksor artists
thatwereinspirations or modelsfortheirown work,and whatplans they
had fortheirfuturesas graffiti writers.I asked whomeach writersaw as
the audience forhis or her work, and whetherhe preferred (or would
prefer)to workon publicspaces or to paintgraffiti forprivatepurchasers.
I also elicitedinformation on each writer'sfamilyand class background.
The set questionsserved as jumping-off pointsforfurther discussion
about each writer'sexperiences.Interviewslasted fromone to three
hours. A few writerswere interviewedin groupsof two or three.The
interviewswere at times followed or accompanied by participant-
observation,as I joined writerson expeditionsto draw graffiti on public
spaces or watched them paint graffiti I
canvases. also observed,and
participatedin, interactionsbetweenwritersand theirpatrons.
Additionalinterviewswereconductedwithgalleryproprietors, artcol-
lectors,photographers, and makersoffilmson graffiti. I also spokewith
theleadersand membersof two Brooklynstreetgangsthathiredgraffiti
writersto advertisethegangs'powerand claimsto turf.Policeand public
prosecutorsprovidedfurtherinformation in interviewsand documents.
Scholarly and journalistic accounts of graffiti,especially Castleman

233

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

(1982), are also citedin thisarticle,although,as I will pointout below,

thedifferent sampleand laterdate ofmyinvestigations yieldedsomedata
thatdifferfromhis.
The gang members,police, public prosecutors,and some of the more
candid art dealers requested anonymity.They are referredto with
pseudonyms,or by theirorganizationalpositions,in this article. The
graffitiwritersare referredto by the "tags" that are theirgraffitiiden-
tities.

CAREER PATHS
Recruitment
Novice graffitiwritersacquireskillsand motivations froman experienced
mentor.In describingtheirrecruitment by mentors,novicessay thatfirst
theyhad to be taughtthattherewas an audienceforgraffiti beforethey
wanted to learn and practicethe techniquesof graffiti writing.Each
graffiti
writerinterviewedtoldofhis initialinabilityto believethatview-
ers of graffiticould identify,and creditto specificwriters,individual
worksof graffiti fromamong the collagesof colorsand lines thatcover
subway cars and neighborhoodwalls. One writerremembershis initial
reluctance"to wastetimebombing[writinggraffiti on subwaycars].Who
would know I did it?"
By accompanyinga mentor,who pointsout his own workand thatof
otherwritersknownto him,thenovicelearnsthatthereis an audiencefor
graffiti.In the process of becomingan audience for his mentor'sand
others'work,the novice comes to believethattherecan be an audience
forhis own work. This beliefis a preconditionforengagingin graffiti
writingand militatesagainst the likelihoodthat individualswho lack
personal acquaintance with graffiti writerswill become writersthem-
selves. Indeed, all the writersI interviewedmettheirmentorsat either
the junior or seniorhigh school theyattendedor in the public housing
projectin whichtheylived. As a result,networksof graffiti writersare
concentratedin particular neighborhoodsrather than being located
throughout New York City.
Mentorsexpressa preference forbefriending novicesyoungerthanthey
because "they'slike my littlebrother,theyshow me respect."Mentors
gain satisfaction,
and ratification oftheirskills,from"showingtoys[their
termfornovices]all I know,teachingmystyle."Novices spreadwordof
theirmentors'abilitiesto spray-paint and to outwitthepolice:"That way
all thejuniors[highschoolstudents]knowwho be king[themostprolific
tagger]of the [subway]line." Mentors'desiresforyoungerprotegeswere
reflectedamong the writersinterviewed,all of whom foundtheirown
mentorsfromamongschoolmatestwoto fouryearsolderthanthey.Since
234

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Graffiti

almostall writersgive up graffitiwriting(forreasonsanalyzedbelow) by

theirlate teens,the selectionof youngerprotegesproducesa youngage
range-between 12 and 15-for novices'initiationintograffiti writing.
The currentabsence of sites outside ghettoneighborhoodsat which
potentialnovicescould meetestablishedmentorshas theeffectofnarrow-
ingand reproducing theexistingethnicand class distribution ofthewrit-
ers. The schoolsand neighborhoods in whichgraffiti writersare concen-
trated are largely populated by poor blacks and Hispanics. Where
Castleman(1982, p. 67) foundwriters"fromeveryrace, nationalityand
economicgroup in New York City" in the 1970s, my 1984 queries to
districtattorneysyieldedtheirconsensus(based on theirreviewof arrest
records,whichthemselvesmightreflect thearresting officers'
own biases)
thatnon-Hispanicwhitescomposed"perhaps5%," "at mosta tenth,"of
graffitiwriters.
Amongthe eliteof graffiti artists,featuredin the galleryexhibitsdis-
cussed below, 15 of 17 are black or Hispanic. Of the 25 writersI inter-
viewed, 19 were not partof thatelitegroupof 17. Amongthe 19, which
was not a randomsample, 12 wereblack, fiveHispanic, and two white.
Twelve lived just withtheirmothers,seven withbothparents.Nine of
the 12 singlemotherswere on welfare,while the otherthreeworkedat
unskilledjobs. In fiveof the seven two-parenthouseholds,bothparents
workedat unskilledjobs. In the two othertwo-parenthouseholds,the
motherswerehousewives,whileone fatherheldan unskilled,theothera
managerial,job.
Graffitiwritersare overwhelmingly male. Only one woman is among
the 17 major writersexhibitedin galleries. She, and the few female
writersknownto theneighborhood-based writersI interviewed,werethe
girlfriends of theirmentors(Mizrahi 1981). However, mostof the male
writersinterviewedbelieve that graffiti writingshould be restrictedto
men and would not trainwomenor accompanyothermen who brought
alongwomen.The male graffiti writers'sexismis integralto theirbravura
conceptionoftheact of graffiti writing.They oftendefinethedangerous-
ness of writingon the subwaysin termsof women'sinabilityto partici-
pate. "You gotto getintotheyards[wherethetrainsare parkedat night]
by goingunderor over thosebarbed-wirefences.They have dogs loose.
Womenget scared and can't keep up."
Graffitiwritersdefinetheirprowess against the police as well as in
comparisonwithwomen. Even as writersprotestthattheirgraffiti are a
positiveadditionto the cityscapeand should be legal, theyrelishthe
contestto elude policecapture.Theyrelyon stealthand speedratherthan
brutestrength.The police are "big, strong.. . . We don't want to fight
thosethugs.... We'resmarterthanthey .... We knowtheirschedule,so
we can getup [thetermforwritinggraffiti on public spaces] beforethey

235

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

come around." "We know theyardsand tracksbetterthanany.... We

knowwhereto run,hide,how to getaway." The writersdisplaythesame
skillsand superiorattitudewhen theysteal the spray-paint cans used to
writegraffiti.It was a pointofhonoramongall thewriterswho workedin
the subways,and even some who weregivenmoneyby galleryor neigh-
borhoodpatronsto buy paint,thattheystoleratherthanpaid forpaint.
A 1977 police surveyfoundthat 28.78% of thosearrestedforgraffiti
writingwerelaterarrestedforfelonies(thereare no data on convictions,
nor is thatfigurecomparedwiththe rate at whichall teenageminority
males in New York Cityare arrestedforfelonies),whichled thetransit
policechiefto assertthat"it is predictablethata younggraffiti writerwill
become a criminal"(quoted in Castleman 1982, p. 167). The police,
districtattorneys,and school counselors I interviewedin 1983-84
doubtedthatgraffiti writingand paint stealingwere precursorsto more
seriouscrimes.One districtattorneyexplainedthat "the link between
graffiti and real crimesis just in our rhetoric."
School counselorsbelievethatyouthsare attractedto graffiti as a way
of provingtheirbraveryand contemptforauthority withoutthedangers
of participationin more seriouscrimes.Graffiti writerswho offertheir
servicesto gangscan gain gangbenefitsand protection withouthavingto
join othergang membersin fightsand felonies.Graffiti writers'felony
arrestratein 1977mightreflect theirassociationswithgangs,eveniflater
theyare foundto be innocentof such crimes,as police were willingto
concedein private.Graffiti allow writersa relativelysafewayto proclaim
theiroppositionto law and its enforcers; thatis whytheyneed and want
to celebrategraffiti'sillegalityto each otherand to thoseschoolmatesand
neighborsengagedin moreseriouscrimes.

Tagging
Once noviceshave acquiredfromtheirmentorstheskillsto writegraffiti
and an understanding thatan audiencecan recognizeindividualwriters'
work, they create distinctidentitiesfor themselvesin the formof a
"tag"-a stylizedsignatureor logo unique to each graffiti writer.The
novice attemptsto win recognitionfroman audience by placinghis tag
beforethe public as oftenas possible. Novices believethatprolificity
is
the path to fame. They are encouragedin that notionby mentorsand
friendswho commenton seeing theirtags. One writerrelateshow he
"tooka week offfromschool,gettingup on the 2 [subway]line. WhenI
got back to schooleverybodywas sayingthey'dseen me on the train."
The vast majorityof graffiti
writersneverprogressbeyondtaggingto
producegraffitimurals.Murals are definedhere as any graffitithaten-
compass morethan the writer'sbasic tag. Transit police in interviews

236

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Graffiti

estimatedthatmorethantwo-thirds of subwaywriterswere merelytag-

gers.The muralistsinterviewedweremoreexactingin theirassessments.
They believed that few writerspossess the artisticabilityto become a
muralist,arguingthat "Few toys[muralists'pejorativetermfortaggers
who failto develop a style]could ever do what we do." "They don'tgot
thestyle... and neverwill." "Not one in a hundredtaggershas ideas and
styleenoughforeven one mural."
Geographiclocation,ratherthan innateartistictalent,is a necessary
preconditionforenteringthe specializedsubsetof muralists,as it is for
becominga tagger.Muralistsare foundin onlya minority of the schools
and housingprojectswheretaggersare located, and onlynovicesthere
became muralists.Some of the taggersinterviewedattendedschool or
lived only a few blocks away fromotherschools and housingprojects
wheremuralistswere present.Yet thosetaggersdid notcrossthatsocial
gulfand link up with muralists.Justas most New York youthslack
access to any graffiti writersand so are unable to appreciatethat an
audiencecould existfortheirgraffiti, mosttaggersdo notenjoyproximity
to establishedmuralists,who could educatethemto value muralquality
over tag quantity.
Taggers who failto apprenticeto muralistscannotenvisionwhythey
should sacrificetheirexistingfameto the long-rangetask of developing
thetechniqueand stylenecessaryforbuildinga reputationas a muralist:
"I's kingof the line. They knowsit's me and even whenI got no style,
even whenI drip [paint].What I shouldslow up taggingjust to dripno
more?I take a yearto learnto be a styleking[i.e., someonenotedforhis
superiormuralstyle],theybe anotherkingoftheline.Then I be nobody."
Novices learnfromtheirmentorsthatfameis won byimposingoneself
on an audience.Taggerscomparethemselvesto advertisers, arguingthat
they purchase space with their boldness and style ratherthan with
money.Mr. G, who takes his tag fromthename of a televisionweather
forecaster featuredin manysubway ads, says, "Mr. G.'s famous'cause
he's rich;I'm famous'cause I ain't scaredofthecops and I gotthestyle."
However,taggers'conceptionofstyledoes notreferto therelativeattrac-
tion of different and advertisements
graffiti to audiences. Instead, they
equate and admireall appropriations ofpublicspace, rarelycoveringads
with theirtags. I repeatedlyobserved subway car interiorsblanketed
withgraffiti exceptforthe spaces coveredby advertisements.

Drop-outsand Gang Taggers

Taggersare caughtin a dilemmaoftheirown making.In orderto be sure
thattheyare "gettingup" theirtagsin sufficient
quantityto be recognized
by an audience,taggersmustinformnovicesof theirwritingin orderto

237

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology

winpersonalconfirmation oftheirfame.However,thatacknowledgment
is gained at the cost of creatingnew taggerswhose graffiti will compete
foraudience attention.
"Fox," who was king of the 2 subway line, expressedthe tagger's
conundrumby lamenting,"I'm bombingall day. Then I gotto watchout
forthe cops so theydon'tbeat me, thenI gotto snatchcans so I can get
up. I can'tresta day, go to thebeach, 'cause someothergonnagetahead
ofme." At thesame time,he expressedpridein "all thetoys[who]follow
me.... I teach themall I know. They want to be kinglike theyknowI
am." A fewweekslater,Fox complained,"There'stoo ... many... toys
on theline. Brotherscan'tsee mytag no more."He decidedto retirefrom
taggingand returnto junior highschool.
Fox's trajectorywas similarto thatofmostofthetaggersinterviewed.
They typicallyspent two or threemonthsat intensivetagging,cutting
schoolin orderto do so, untiltheycould claimthetitleof"kingofa line."
At thatpoint,theyattractednovicesin an effort to ratifytheirstatusand
then feltsecure enough to slacken theirown taggingefforts.Over the
followingmonths,the novices themselvesachieved fame and attracted
theirown toys,displacingtheold kings.All thetaggersinterviewed were
unwilling"to startthat bombinggrindagain" in an effortto make a
comebackin competition withtheirformerdisciples,preferring to reston
laurelsearnedmonthsor even yearsearlier.
The lack of possibilitiesforfurtherachievements,beyondbecoming
kingof a line, precludestaggingfrombecominga career.In theabsence
of careeropportunities, and underthe pressuresof competition,all the
writersinterviewed,unlesstheybecamemuralistsor gangtaggers,aban-
donedactivewritingwithineightmonths.WhileCastleman(1982,p. 67)
quotes police who believe that writers"stop graffiti by theirsixteenth
birthday"because at thatage theybecomeliable forcriminalpenalties,
most of the taggersI interviewedquit at a youngerage, and none ac-
knowledgedfearof arrestor of police violenceas a reasonforstopping
theirtagging.We will see in the followingsectionthat some muralists
curtailedtheirgraffitiwritingbecause of knowledgeor experienceof
police beatings.Perhaps taggers'involvementin writingis too briefto
exposethemto a highenoughriskof an encounterwithpolicethatcould
deterthemfromfurther writing.
Inactivetaggersbelievetheyretaintheirneighborhood fameeven after
theirtags have been displaced by others:"I been the king. The whole
school knows what I done, what I can do again. I got respect,I'm a
writer."As long as retiredtaggersbelieve theyretaintheirfame,they
have no need to returnto active tagging.A school guidancecounselor
agreedwiththatlogic: "Even thoughthe kids mayflunka termbecause
they'vemissed school while gettingup, those monthsof graffiti are a

238

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Graffiti

smartinvestment.For yearsaftertheycan standas equals withthe real

bad students:thegangmembers,thedrugdealers,theones who threaten
teachers.They establishthemselvesas toughguysand can thenget on
withgraduatinghighschool." Anothercounselor,finding in herreviewof
school recordsthat a majorityof writersreturnto school and are more
likelyto be promotedat year'send thantheaveragestudentat thathigh
school,believesthat "the sortof kid who can be motivatedto workfor
hourseach day taggingto become famouscan also accept the grindof
schoolin orderto get a degree."
Withinneighborhoods,only gangs offertaggersthe incentivesto re-
main active aftertheyhave already achieved fame throughtheirtags.
Gangs recruittaggersto develop a tag forthe gang, whichcan thenbe
used to adornmembers'clothesand markofftheirterritory. Taggersare
used whena gang wantsto make or reassertitsclaimto territory. Gangs
will saturatea housingproject,school,or subwayline withtheirtags to
demonstrate theircommitment to holdingthatterritory.Thus, gangswill
employtaggerswho have demonstrated theirprolificity
by gettingtheir
own tags up.
An offerof gang employment is tangiblerecognitionof a tagger'sfame
fromotherneighborhoodyouths.Gangs usuallyprovidespraypaint to
thewriters,by eitherstealingor extorting thepaintfromlocal storekeep-
ers. The gangspay theirwriterswithcash, drugs,and also offerprotec-
tionin theirterritory. Oftengang employment providesthe taggerwith
the impetusand means to recruitnovices. A gang taggeroftenneeds
assistanceto get up the gang's tag over a large territory.The principal
taggercan sharehis gang paymentswithnoviceswho agreeto help with
gangwork.Severalnovicessaid theywereattractedto theirmentors,and
to graffitiwriting,by the rewardsof gang work.
The taggersintervieweddid not become fullgang members.Never-
theless,they voiced pleasure in the rewards,prestige,and protection
affordedby theirgang affiliation and were aware thattaggingallowed
themto reap thosebenefitswithoutthedangersfacedby fullgangmem-
bersinvolvedin feloniesand in warfarewithrival gangs:"They respect
me, theygive me [drugs].All the toysrespectme. . . . I get it withmy
style,I don't got to fight."
Geographiclocationdetermineswhichwritersgain theopportunity to
link up with gangs. Gang leaders and taggersagreedthatit was gangs
that took the initiativein approachingtaggers.One gang leader asked
around his high school to findthe tagger"everybodyknows was all
around." The taggerremembershis surpriseat the offer:"I neverknew
[thegang]wantedme to make themfamouswitha tag.... Theyshowed
me and said theywantedme to getit [thegang'stag] up in the[housing]
project"thatthe gang was attempting to add to its turf.

239

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology

Taggers' willingnessto subordinatetheirquest forindividualfamein

returnforthe materialand social rewardsof gang affiliation provides
supportfor the Beckerian contentionthat graffiti do not have single,
determinate meanings.Rather,the tag's value is derivedfromthesocial
relationswithinwhichit is createdand is transformed by taggers'devel-
opingtiesto mentorsand audiences.The tag can be understoodas a sign
ofpersonalfame,an attributeofitscreator,onlythroughthedyadictieof
mentorto novice.The tag assumesa different symbolism-collectiveand
territorial-whenproducedby membersor affiliates of gangs.

Muralists
Historically,in New York City, graffiti muralismdeveloped fromtag-
ging.Duringthe late 1960s and early 1970s,the numberof taggersand
thevolumeof graffiti on thesubwaysproliferated. Writerscompetingfor
each other'srecognition,and forpublic fame, createdever largerand
moreelaboratetags. Some writersexperimented withspray-canpainting
techniquesto createmuralsand thussoughtto distinguish themselvesby
the quality,ratherthan the quantity,of theirgraffiti (Castleman 1982,
pp. 52-65).
Muralistsare requiredto surmountlogisticaland artisticproblemsnot
encounteredby taggers.One muralistdrew the comparison:"Taggers
nevergetnear the [electrified]thirdrail. They whip out a spraycan and
getup on theinsideofthecar, or on theoutsidewhenthetrain'sstanding
in the station. They's so fast, the cops never see them. A whole car
[mural]takeshours,morewhenI workedalone" or on a complexdesign.
Thus, it is onlythe muralistswho mustlearnto workon theoutsidesof
cars near the thirdrail and other,movingtrains:"We got to scout to
knowtherightyardsand tunnels[so]we can worklongenoughto finisha
whole car beforethe [police]chase us away."
The mostdauntingproblemfacingnovicemuralists,once theylearnto
avoid the police and the thirdrail, is to figureout what to paint on the
side of a subway car, a canvas 60 feetlong. The youngmuralistsbegin
theirapprenticeships by fillingin the outlinesof large graffiti
worksde-
signedby theirmentors.Such work does not contributeto the novice's
own fame but does allow him to learn fromtechnicallyaccomplished
writerswithwell-developedstylesand reputations:the mentor"showed
me how to move the [spray]can and not drip,how to put colorsnextto
and on top ofeach other,how to make [lettering appear]3-D[imensional]
and [roundedin the] bubble style."
The apprenticemuralists'willingnessto work anonymously,in con-
trastto thenovicetaggers,who quicklybegingettingup theirown tagsto
buildfame,pointsup thedifference betweentaggers'and muralists'ideas

240

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Graffiti

of how graffiti are evaluated and fame is conferredby audiences. The

muralistsinterviewedall deridedthe goal of producingtags in quantity,
characterizing such graffiti
as "scribble-scrabble"and having"no style."
These muralistsrecountedthat at the outsetof theirgraffiti-writing ca-
reerstheyhad concentrated on developingtheirartisticstylesand claimed
that theyhad soughtand achieved fame throughtheirexcellentstyles
ratherthan the drudgeryof gettingup their tags in quantity.Such
memories,which involve selectiveforgetting by muralistsof theirearly
effortsat tagging,are importantas indicatorsofthesharpdividebetween
taggersand muralistsand of the verydifferent ways in whichthe two
typesof writerspursueand assignfame.
In cultivatingstylesthatwould distinguish themfromthemorenumer-
ous and prolifictaggers,muralistsidentifytheirpeers as an audience
betterable than the public at large to discernand appreciatestylish
murals: "No clerk, no . . . schoolteachercan say if I got style. Only
someonewho's out there. .. [doingmurals]on thesubways,in theparks
can know to judge what I done." Muralists'substitution of a gradated
and qualitativeforan absoluteand quantitativeidea offameleads them
to adopt a different strategyforlocatingan audienceworthyof ratifying
theirgraffitistatus.Whiletaggersconcentrate on a particular
theirefforts
subway line to attractrecognitionfroman undifferentiated audience in
theirneighborhoods,muralistsseek out skilledcolleaguesfrombeyond
theirneighborhoods to confertheirreputationsforstyle.
Graffiti'smobilityon subway cars that cross neighborhoods provides
thematerialconditionsformuraliststo meetat "writers'corners"and to
allocatefameforstyleon a city-wide basis. Severalstationsserveas nodes
forthe New York City subway system.Because a numberof different
subwaylines pass throughthosestations,muralistscould sit on benches
in thosestationsand in the courseof severalhourswatch a substantial
fractionof the city'sstock of subway cars and graffiti muralspass by.
Beginningin 1972, such writers'cornersprovideda forumformuralists
fromdifferent neighborhoods to becomeknownto each otherand forma
city-widecommunityof seriousmuralists(Castleman1982, pp. 84-87).
The writers'cornersserved to organizemuralists'careers.Muralists
fromseveralneighborhoodscould gatherat a singlecornerto determine
theirrelativestylisticprowess and accomplishments.Because subway
trainstravelbetweenboroughs,muralistsat each cornerbecame aware
thatotherwriters,unknownto them,wereat workelsewherein thecity.
As "Bear" explained,"We would see some finecars go by . .. knowing
therewere mastersout therewe'd neverseen. We knew themas artists
before[we visitedthemat theirown cornersand] got to know themas
men." Meetingon the trainsand at each other'scorners,muralistsmea-
suredtheiraccomplishments and fameon a city-widebasis. Bear remem-

241

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology

bered,"Meetingat thecornerswe foundoutwhat ... [otherwriters] were

tryingto accomplish.. . . [We discussed]ideas forstyle,could agree on
what workedand what was just junk. . . . That's how we learnedso
much... whywe werethefirstand thebest"generation ofgraffiti
artists.
Out of such discussions,writersformulatedplans and organizedparties
forcollectivework.Muralistsratifiedtheirstatusas stylistsby theinclu-
sion of theirlabor and theirideas in such collectiveprojects.

THE ORGANIZATIONALAND IDEOLOGICAL MAKING

OF AN ART WORLD
Graffitiwriterscreateand sustaina beliefin theirfamethroughtheirties
to fellowtaggersand muralists.The natureofthoselinksdetermines the
contentand durabilityof writers'sense that audiences appreciatetheir
graffiti.Graffiti's
historicaldevelopmentis sociologicallyinteresting be-
cause theoriginalwritersdid notemergefromotherartworlds.Few had
studiedart in school, and none were practicingprofessionals.I was un-
able to findevidencethatanywritershad been activein theLatin Ameri-
can or Caribbean folkart worldsthatalso producemurals.The original
graffitimuralistscould be viewed as naive artistsin thattheylacked any
sortof trainingyetproducednew formsof art thatincorporateddiverse
elementsof mass culture.However, unlikethe sociallyand aesthetically
isolatednaive artistsdescribedbyBecker(1982,pp. 258-69), taggersand
muralistsdevelopedsocial mechanismsbothforallocatingfameand for
the recruitment and trainingof new writers.
Taggers use existingties to neighborsand schoolmatesto conceiveof
audiencesfortheirgraffiti. Castleman(1982, pp. 95-107) and Williams
and Kornblum(1985, pp. 73-82) describethe efforts of taggersto win a
greatermeasureof fame forthemselvesby forming"writinggangs" or
"crews"in an effortto get up a group,ratherthan personal,tag over a
widerterritory. However,once taggerslaid claimto territory, theycame
in conflictwithfighting gangs,who eitherpressuredthemto disbandor
incorporatedthemintothefighting gang,as describedabove. The limits
on taggers'organizationaldevelopmentpreventthemfromviewingfame
as more than a personal attribute(albeit one that can be traded for
participationin a fightinggang). Conversely,the purelyquantitative
evaluationof taggers'fame limitsthe complexityof theirorganization,
and byconcentrating theirattentionon territory,
taggersare broughtinto
competitionwithviolentgangs.
Muralists'qualitativeconceptionof styleallowed themto develop a
total art world, formulating aestheticstandardsforevaluatingone an-
other'smuralsand determining whichinnovationsof contentand tech-
nique would be judged advances in graffiti style.Comparisonsof style

242

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Graffiti

weremade possiblebygraffiti's mobilityon subwaycars. Writers'corners

allowed muraliststo associatewiththeirpeers,who constituted an audi-
ence withtheexperienceand discrimination forbestowingfameforstyle.
However, that collegial audience could not provide access to a wider
audiencenor generatematerialrewardsforartworkon public spaces.
My focus heretoforeon the temporaldevelopmentof the individual
writer'scareer supportsBecker's thesisthat tags and murals,whether
viewed as deviance or as art, assume meaningin termsof the social
relationswithinwhichtheyare created.As taggersmove fromdyads to
writinggroupsand gangs,and as muralistsdevelop widercirclesof col-
laboratorsand admirers,the intentof theirgraffiti is transformed to
address theirsocial networks.While viewingthe individualcareer as
dynamic,I have consideredsocial relationsamongtaggersand muralists
and with theiraudiences as static. Yet the subculturaland Beckerian
perspectiveseach posita causal relationbetweenaudienceinitiativeson
theone hand and graffiti writers'ideologiesof,and practicesforgenerat-
ing, fameon the other.Hall et al. contendthatthe natureof a subcul-
ture'schallengeto hegemoniccategorieswill shape thedominantreaction
to the subculture,while Becker gives autonomyto audiences and sees
theirrejectionor acceptanceas decisivein alteringcareeropportunities
forpeople so labeled.
We can gauge theexplanatoryvalue, and limitations, oftheBeckerian
and subculturalmodels by examiningthe ways in whichthe muralists'
cohesiveartworld,describedabove, has beenfractured in the 1980s.The
followingsectionstracemuralists'movementsfromwriters'cornersinto
galleriesand gangs and concurrent effortsby the police to destroythose
corners.Muralists'loss of organizationalcohesionand thediversification
oftheircareersand audiencesovertimeprovidetheopportunity forus to
examinehow theirstructuralsituationsaffected,and were affectedby,
theirideologiesof fame.

THE FRAGMENTATIONOF THE GRAFFITI ART WORLD

Police Disruptionof Writers'Corners
Muralists'abilityto meetand allocatefameon a city-widebasis has been
diminishedsince the late 1970s by police harassmentof writers'corners
(Castleman 1982, pp. 87-89). The police have arrestedwritersgathered
at corners,seizingand oftendestroyingtheblack bookswriterscarrythat
containphotosand sketchesoftheirmurals.One policemanboasted,"We
get the kids, and theirbooks containenoughevidenceto get a convic-
tion."However,muralists,like thetaggersdiscussedabove, are notcon-
cernedwiththe legal consequencesof arrest.New York Cityjudges, as
one borough'sdistrictattorneyruefullycomplained,oftendismissand

243

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology

neverseriouslypunishcases of graffiti vandalism.What scaresmuralists

are the stories,told by fellowmuralists,, of cases in which police beat,
ratherthan arrest,writers.The muralistswho spoke mostseriouslyof
quitting,or had alreadygivenup, subwaywritingwereones withfriends
who had sufferedpolice beatings.That fear was commonto muralists
olderand youngerthan 16-the age at whichtheybecomeliable foradult
punishment.Police violenceis a real deterrent forgraffiti
writers;com-
binedwithcontinuingsurveillance,it has destroyedthewriters'corners.
By spring1983, none of the writers'cornerswere stillfunctioning.
The absence of writers'corners,and the transitauthority's success at
quicklyerasingmostmuralson subway cars, means that neighborhood
muralistsenjoyneitherpersonalnorartifactualcontactwithothermural-
ists.As a result,thesocial and materialbases forsustainingtheirideology
of famehave been lost. Confinedto theirneighborhoods, muralistscan-
not determinewhethertheir work meritsrecognitionfromthe now-
shatteredmuralistart world.
Withthe destructionof the old art world,Becker'stheorywould pre-
dict that neighborhoodmuralistswould eitherfindnew audiences for
theirgraffiti or abandon theirart. At the timeof myobservations,most
muralswere placed above groundon public spaces in writers'neighbor-
hoods:thewalls ofplaygroundhandballcourtsand theoutsidesofpublic
housingprojectsand schools.Those spaces have theadvantagesofbeing
large enoughforelaboratemuralsyet situatedin ghettoneighborhoods
and therefore not guardedby the police or erased by a citygovernment
thatis arousedonlyby thosegraffiti thatpass beforetheeyesofitswhite
and middle-classconstituents.
Muralists believe that their art is appreciated by local residents,
" 'cause we's bringingstylearound."However,thelocal buildingowners
and shopkeeperswho commissionmuralsdo so in the beliefthat it re-
duces the likelihoodof vandalism against theirproperty.Some school
officialshave allowedmuralson theinsidesand outsidesoftheirbuildings
on the same principle.Gangs do view murals as a source of prestige
withinthe community.Gang leadersbelievethatstylishgraffiti on their
jackets and murals on theirclubhousesare signs of theirsuccess and
wealth.One leaderexplicitlycomparedhis purchaseof graffiti jackets to
a person'sbuying"a paintingso otherssay . .. he is rich."Anothergang
leadertoldofhiringa muralistto painttheoutsideofhis clubhouse,"just
like I was a museum."Muralists'community statuswas comparedwith
thatof taggersby a gangleader,who explained,"Tags is just forregular
times.... Whenanother[gang]comeson [ourturf]we get[a muralist]to
say thisis ours,we is serious,we is readyto pay to keep our streets."He
went on to describehow his competitionwith rival gangs to hire ever
morefamousmuraliststo paint ever largermuralson disputedterritory

244

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Graffiti

initiated,and occasionallysubstituted for,gangwars. Indeed, on several

subway lines the only whole-carmurals were those commissionedby
gangs. Gang patronsdid not care that those muralswere oftenerased
withina day sincetheywereintendedonlyfortheeyesoftherivalgang,
who weretoldwhenand whereto watchthepaintedcar pass throughthe
disputedturf.
Despite the social and financialappreciationshown by neighborhood
audiences,albeitformuralsthatmeettheparticularadvertisingneedsof
gangs and propertyowners,the muralistsI interviewedtendedto mea-
suretheirlocal fameagainstthewiderrecognition once available at writ-
ers' corners(and stillavailable foran eliteof galleryartists,describedin
the nextsection).The denigrationof neighborhoodrewardswas shared
by even those muraliststoo young to have attendedwriters'corners.
Unaware thatothersubwaymuralistssharetheirisolation,theneighbor-
hood muralistsI interviewedblamedthemselvesforlack ofwiderrecog-
nition.One neighborhoodmuralist,withsubwaycars (forgangs),school
walls, handballcourts,and theretainingwalls oftwotenementbuildings
(at the behestof theirowners,who paid him to do the murals)to his
credit,lamented,"I was sure I'd be a kingof stylelike Lee [a muralist
thenfeaturedin galleriesand in filmson graffiti]. Brothersis all tellingme
I'm fine.... But no TV crew, no rich-assbuyerbeen down to see me.
Maybe I was wrong.I guessI'm notthatgood." Subsequently,he refused
a commissionto painta wall at his schooland announcedhis retirement
fromgraffiti.
A Beckerianemphasison social tiesto mentorsand audiencesmakesit
difficultto explainwhy a muralistnurturedon community expectations
and rewardswould abandon graffiti in deferenceto thegreatersuccessof
anotherartistin a different artworld.Muralists'devaluationofthefame
and financialrewardsgeneratedwithincommunityart worldssuggests
thatwe mustinvestigatetheeffectofhegemonicconceptionsoffameand
artisticworthon muralists'evaluationsoftheirsocialtiesas well as on the
waysin whichthosetiesmoldlocal standardsofsuccessand reward.The
followingsectionshows how the theoreticalframeworksdeveloped to
studyartworldsand subculturescan be joined to understandthewaysin
whichgraffiti muralistsresponded,in theirindividualcareersand in their
collectiveideologiesof fame, to waves of acceptanceand rejectionby
commercialart galleries.

Graffiti
in Galleries
Subway muralistshave come to the attentionof galleryowners,critics,
and buyersin theeliteNew York artworldtwicein thepasttwo decades:
firstbeginningin late 1972,and a secondtimein 1980.In each instance,a

245

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology

group of entrepreneursserved as intermediaries,packaging graffiti

muralistsand theirworkin ways thatappealed to journalistsand gallery
owners. The entrepreneurs' interventions in the subway muralists'art
worldfitHebdige's definition of "the commodityform"(1979, p. 94) in
thattheysoughtto removemuralistsfromthesocial and aestheticcontext
forwhichtheirartwas invented.Castleman(1982,pp. 117-33) describes
how theorganizersofUnitedGraffiti Artists(UGA) and itssuccessor,the
Nation of Graffiti Artists(NOGA), triedto "win theirmembersrecogni-
tion as serious artistsby encouragingwritersto produce graffiti-style
workson canvas and variousothermediawitha viewtowardtheirsale to
art collectors"(p. 117).
The merefactof galleryowners'commercialinterestin graffiti maybe
takenas an effort to co-optan alternativeaestheticand social forminto
the dominantart world. However, the way in which graffiti canvases
were presentedfor sale, and the timingof interestin graffiti art, re-
sponded,as Beckerwould contend,to thedynamicoftheartmarketand
did not react,as Hebdige would predict,to the specificcharacterof the
graffitisubculture'sresistanceto hegemoniccategories.Graffiti canvases
were marketedas a responseto buyers'constantdemand for stylistic
innovation.But because graffiti artistsviolated so many of the post-
modernistcanons, theircanvases could not be evaluated and pricedin
relationto otherworks.As a result,dealersskirtedtheaestheticmeritsof
graffitiart in theirsales pitchesand insteadcontrastedthe artists'back-
groundofpovertyand crime(eventhoughseveralso describedgrewup in
stable,working-class families)withtheircurrentabilityto "paintjust like
real,trainedartists." The ownerofa prestigious Manhattangallerystated
that,as a sociologist,I would no doubt be interestedthat"thesegraffiti
paintingsby poor, ignorantblacks and PuertoRicans hang in the same
museums, are sold in the same galleries, as Picasso, Pollock and
Schnabel."
The emphasison graffiti artists'unconventional backgroundservedto
attracttheattentionof buyerswho mightotherwisehave shunnedpaint-
ingsso farremovedfromthe conventionsof eliteart. However,because
graffitiwere sold as what one dealer calls "the efforts of ex-junkiesand
thievesto pull themselvesout of the ghetto,"and boughtas "the way in
which these poor people can betterthemselves,"in the words of one
collector,prices remainedlow, reachingpeaks of $3,000 forlarge can-
vases in 1973-74 and $5,000 in 1982-83. Speculativeinterestquickly
waned. In the firstinstance,demand had driedup by 1975 (Castleman
1982, pp. 119-25). When I conducted my interviewsafterthe 1983
Christmasseason, the markethad again collapsed. Galleriesrefusedto
buy any more canvases fromgraffiti writers.While dealers expressed

246

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Graffiti

optimism,several betrayedperhapsthe truestateof affairswhen, after

allowinggeneroustime forinterviews,theyasked whetherI could ar-
rangefora graffiti art show in Madison, Wisconsin,hardlythe sortof
place to park canvases in a vibrantmarket.
Whilegalleryowners'periodicinterestin graffiti was a responseto the
logicof theeliteart market,the organizationaland ideologicalattributes
ofthegraffiti writers'subculturedo help us understandtheirreactionsto
the waxingand waning of commercialdemandfortheirwork. Subway
muralistsof the 1970s successfullyresistedbuyers'attemptsto impose
themselvesas thejudges of graffiti writersand theirwork. The writers'
corners,ratherthanUGA, NOGA, or thegalleries,remainedthesitesat
whichstylewas judged and fame allocated. Writersat all careerlevels
agreed that a writer'sstandingwas determinedby his subway work
(Castleman1982, pp. 81, 110-11) and thatgalleryshowsand sales were
the rewards,not the arbiters,of writers'graffiti reputations(Goldstein
1980). The muralistswho had come to the attentionof galleryowners
throughthe exhibits,with the resultantpublicityin generalcirculation
newspapersand magazines,took it upon themselvesto introducetheir
peersat writers'cornersto galleryownersand artbuyers.The muralists'
successin circumventing the entrepreneurs' effortsto imposethemselves
as themediatorsbetweenthesubwayand commercialartworldsensured
that the standardsof the writers'cornersremaineddecisivein shaping
writers'careers. The organizationaland ideologicalrobustnessof the
writers'cornerslimitedthe commodification in the 1970s.
of graffiti
The demiseofthewriters'cornersleftmuralistsmorevulnerableto the
blandishments ofa secondgenerationofentrepreneurs who organizedthe
"Time Square Show" forgraffiti canvases in 1980 and otherexhibitsin
thefollowingyears.The 1980sentrepreneurs recruitedmuraliststhrough
the few gallerywritersof the 1970s stillactive at the end of the decade.
The writersintroducedtheexhibitorganizersto theirfriendsand proteges
knownto themfromneighborhood and school.In theabsenceofwriters'
corners,youngmuralistsofthe 1980shave no place to makecontactwith
those writersalready known to the galleries.Unlike the 1970s gallery
writers,who were continuallyreinforcedwith stars recruitedfromthe
writers'corners,the writerscataloged in the last major exhibitof this
period(Janis1983)wereall recruitedbyentrepreneurs at theoutsetofthe
decade and were personallyacquainted with each otherbeforebeing
packaged togetherin graffiti art exhibits.
Afterthe destructionof the writers'corners,the galleriesbecame the
onlysites at which muralistscould meetotherwriterstheyregardedas
peers. As a result,theycame to sharetheirpatrons'rejectionof subway
graffiti
as a legitimateformofart. The catalogofthe 1983"Post-Graffiti"

247

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology

muralist's"transition
exhibitcelebratesthe graffiti fromsubwaysurfaces
to canvas. . . . Today his painting,no longertransitory or ephemeral,
joins the traditionof contemporary art and is recognizedas an existing
valid movement"(Janis 1983). The muralistsecho theirpatrons'distinc-
tionbetweensubwaygraffiti and art on canvas, whichis "post" graffiti.
Severalof the gallerymuralistsadvocate a ban on subwaygraffiti, argu-
ingthat"we werethefirstand thebest. The writingnow is just scribble-
scrabble.Our pieces were art."
Althoughmost of the gallerymuralistsstill live in the same com-
munitiesin whichtheybegantheirgraffiti careers,theyrefuseto associate
withneighborhoodmuralistsand do not introduceyoungermuraliststo
gallerypatrons,fearingthe competitionand the danger that patrons
might"confusemyartwiththatsubwaygarbage."The gallerymuralists
gain neighborhoodstatusnotthroughtheirgraffiti, whichnow are done
only for private patrons,but fromthe ways in which theyspend the
incomefromtheirgallerysales. Several of the galleryartistsspoke with
pride of theirabilityto affordhigh-priceddrugs, such as heroinand
cocaine, forthemselvesand theirgirlfriends. No longeracknowledging
theirneighbors'capacityto judge theirart and conferfame,the gallery
muralistsseek community admirationoftheextravaganceoftheirprivate
consumptioninstead of the skill of theirpublic production.Afterthe
collapseof thegraffitiart marketin 1983,noneof themuralistsreturned
to subwayor neighborhood art. A fewquit artentirely;
theotherssought
to enrollin art schoolsor make careersas graphicartists.

CONCLUSION
This examinationof graffitiwriters'careersand of the fragmentation of
the graffiti
art worldin the 1980s suggeststhatboth the Beckerianand
subculturalapproachesto deviance mustbe modifiedto accountforthe
interactionof organizationand ideologyin the individualand collective
experiencesof graffitiwriters.Entrepreneurs and galleryownersmade
similarattemptsto commodifygraffiti in the 1970s and 1980s. Their
effortssucceededin thesecondperiodbecause, in theinterval,thepolice
had disruptedthe writers'corners.This suggestsan importantqualifica-
tionto Hebdige's discussionof "the commodityform"as a way of over-
whelmingsubcultures'resistance.If theexistenceofa subcultureis a sign
that its membersreject hegemonicpractices,then simplyoffering the
rewardsofthedominantcultureshouldnot,in itself,subvertthesubcul-
ture'sideologicalor organizationalcohesiveness.Only by undermining
the organizationalbases forsustainingbeliefin the subculture'salterna-
writers,or anyoneelse, be attractedto a
tiveview ofrealitycould graffiti
conceptionof realitytheypreviouslyhad rejected.

248

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Graffiti

The causal priorityof organizationalover ideologicalchange in the

practicesof graffitiwriterslends supportto Becker'scontention thatca-
reersin deviance,and in art,are groundedin theindividual'slocal tiesto
mentors,peers,and audiences.Yet thosesocial tiesmustproducea sense
ofrealitywithenoughresonanceto sustainan individualin his pursuitof
a career.In the discussionof taggers'truncatedcareers,we saw thatthe
quantitativeconceptionof fame generatedby theirties to mentorsand
audiencesdid not allow forthe further developmentof a taggingcareer.
Only by forginglinksto gangs,and subordinating theirsense of fameto
the collectivegoals of the gang, could taggerscontinueto writegraffiti.
Similarly,neighborhoodmuralists'supportfrompatronsand local audi-
enceslostimportancein comparisonwiththeadulationand rewardsthey
believedgallerymuralistsreceivedfromtheirsponsors.
Graffitiwritersat all stagesofa careeruse theirimmediatesocialtiesto
constructgeneralizationsabout theiropportunities forfame. However,
whenwritersgain first- or secondhandknowledgeofotherwriters'social
relationsand access to fame, the value of sustainingtheirown graffiti
writingand the resultantlinks to peers and audiences are called into
question.Writers'cornersreinforced and deepenedmuralists'earliercon-
ceptionsoffame,whiletheloss ofsuchtiesto peers,in combinationwith
the experienceor knowledgeof thedifferent rewardsavailable to gallery
artists,made muralistsquestionthe worthof local fame. Taggers' en-
counterswith othersimilarlysituatedtaggerscalled into questionthe
beliefthatthegeneralpublicechoedthefametheyhad won frommentors
and fromtheirown disciples.
AlthoughBeckercorrectly arguesthatindividualslearnbehaviorsand
beliefsthroughsocial interactions, we mustamend his insightby recog-
nizingthat graffiti writers,and all othersocial actors, must reconcile
what theylearn and do in theirindividualcareerswith theirbroader
experiencesand observations,or, in the language of Marxist cultural
theory,with the hegemonicculture.The analysisof individualcareers
mustbe groundedin an understanding thatexternallabelingor co-optive
interventions have theirgreatesteffectby makingapparentthe internal
limitationsin the organizationalor ideologicalbases fora careeror sub-
cultureand therebyconfirming or subvertingindividuals'faithin the
value of pursuingartistic,deviant,or any activitywithothers.

REFERENCES
Becker,HowardS. 1963.Outsiders.New York:Free Press.
. 1982.ArtWorlds.Berkeleyand Los Angeles:University
ofCaliforniaPress.
Best, Joel,and David Luckenbill.1982. OrganizingDeviance. EnglewoodCliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Castleman,Craig. 1982.GettingUp. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press.

249

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

Clarke, John. 1975. "Style." Pp. 175-91 in Resistancethrough Rituals:YouthSubcul-

tures in Post-war Britain, edited by Stuart Hall et al. London: Hutchinson.
Goldstein, Richard. 1980. "The Fire Down Below." Village Voice, December 24-30,
pp. 55-58.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Prison Notebooks. New York: International.
Hall, Stuart. 1977. "Culture, the Media and the 'Ideological Effect.' "Pp. 315-48 in
Mass Communication and Society, edited by James Curran et al. London: Open
UniversityPress.
Hall, Stuart,etal., eds. 1975. Resistancethrough Rituals:YouthSubcultures in Post-
war Britain. London: Hutchinson.
Hebdige, Dick. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen.
Janis, Sidney. 1983. Post-Graffiti(exhibitcatalog). New York: Sidney Janis Gallery,
New York.
Luckenbill, David, and Joel Best. 1981. "Careers in Deviance and Respectability:The
Analogy's Limitations." Social Problems29:197-206.
Mailer, Norman. 1974. The Faith of Graffiti.New York: Praeger.
Mizrahi, Marilyn. 1981. "Up from the Subway." In These Times, October 21-27,
pp. 19-20.
Williams, Terry M., and William Kornblum. 1985. Growing Up Poor. Lexington,
Mass.: Heath.
Willis, Paul. 1977. Learning to Labor. New York: Columbia UniversityPress.

250

This content downloaded from 109.154.88.16 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions