At various times I have had ideas. We all have ideas. In 2003 I became attached to the idea of graffiti as camouflage it was followed by an idea of aerosol nature. This was in 2009, graffiti was essentially a form of natural order. It was essentially following a pattern of recognition, it was recognisable as something else. That else was branches and its expression was essential not literal. I used to always have ideas, they would come to me, I realised they were not always original ideas but they came as though they meant something. In general they inspired work, I would use these things to create something out of. The ideas for camouflage were for a different way of seeing a surface. I wanted to take the most decrepid building with peeling paintwork and contrast it with a floating layer of clean paint differentiated to show a layer. I used to paint like this on canvas, I would use a smart fabric something from a shirt and float a layer of paint over it making a shadow with a clear ground. In 2003 I wanted to do this on buildings, turn the building into a piece of art talking of its own process of transition. The idea that buildings could talk came to me in 1995, they spoke within their own form. All this madness was a bit eccentric but the ideas just kept coming. For a while I actually stopped having ideas, they just stopped, instead I had to work hard to create, I had to use the process of physically pushing paint to find something.
The idea that graffiti has a form is no surprise, it is a bit romantic to think it is natural. When I used that term though it was to describe it generally as something that was not essentially threatening. Graffiti though on its own and a clean wall don’t necessarilly become interesting just because they are there or are in some way opposed, they are not that interesting really. What is interesting though is the representation of ownership, the representation of a conversation maybe an argument over ownership. When indiginous Australians started seeing fences they were a hindrance to hunting. The native tribes had ownership but it was represented in other ways. The land itself was the representation the form of ownership as seen by various groups and clans, they didn’t need to create a representation of an invisible owner. The owner stakes a claim through a form, the form speaks on behalf of the owner. The owner is there the whole time projected onto the landscape through an obstruction. I don’t believe we all need to pull down fences but need to understand that there are other forms which interupt the presentation. If the world is a stage the stage is a series of individuated presentations that are unified in their particularity, they overlap so why be surprised if marks or other representations find their way onto what is another representation. Nobody really is, it is natural to expect overlapping and messy messages. The fun part of all these layers of presentation and representation is the sheer volume of voices competing to be seen.
The issue historically is the aim of humans to understand their environment and how they interact with it. It would have been strange to see fences especially when they were not practical for the hunting and gathering of food. The fences were not just about a physical obstruction but become the very obstruction to a way of life, it is interesting that the obstructions were built within the very fabric of the society itself. It was all an obstruction. The fantasy of ecology is the natural space, the natural order and so on, just like arguments about ideology and all of that within political space. What is funny though is that the obstruction became a form that could extend the human lifespan and I personally appreciate a lot of what we have personally but my argument is that representation now is so saturated that it spills over onto the streets. That is not a new argument or particularly original but it is simply amazing in itself, I personally have always opposed old ideas of graffiti as a cancer or hindrance it is rightly as the SI noted a revolutionary tool. A self representaion above the over represented space we inhabit. The invisible owner is basically God, the ultimate owner of everything. What if God came back for his creation? Came back to claim creation, well God doesn’t seem that interested really probably too busy with hobby universes. As we know God came to Earth got tortured and left, leaving us to carve the Earth up and feel dissatisfied. What does surprise me and maybe it is just me but I can’t understand why we need one particular representation and can’t truly have maybe two or more as a structure. China goes on about one country two systems and I admit that looks a bit scary but it kind of works in a very uninspiring way, though a lot of business types think its a sure fire winner if you can get into the market. Thats into the one side of the two streams of their politics the free market side.
The settlers i.e. invaders were supposed to respect the inhabitants and let them lead their own ways of life but they broke their own laws to stake their claim, was it greed? If graffiti and street art didn’t stake a claim then advertising would step in. It is all up for grabs now, the damage has been done we are all trying to make our claim to virtual space and the streets are where the revolution is happening. Unfortunately it gets recuperated but it beats the dole especially since you can’t get it anymore.