As determined in previous sections of this literature review, customisation by end users can take the form of folk art installations in urban environments, where the inspiration behind these acts has been discussed at length. A common
occurrence of customisation in urban environments is evident in the presence of street art, frequently referred to as guerrilla art; described by Visconti et al as being “at the forefront of…spirited confrontation” (Visconti et al, 2010, p. 512), where spirited confrontations take the form of “agency and inter-mutual
behaviours” towards established practices and hegemonic ideals (ibid).
However, street art has recently become increasingly popular, with names like Banksy and Shepard Fairey becoming well-known in arts communities.
According to Riggle, street art is antithetical to the art world, where he argues that formalist principles cannot be used to address its occurrence (Riggle, 2010, pp.
250 – 251). Riggle writes:
“…street art embodies a response to modernism that is interestingly different to postmodern, or post-historical, response. Modernism separated art and
life…such art [retains] artistically distinguishing visual properties” (Riggle, 2010, p. 251)
At a superficial level, graffiti can be linked to criminality and feelings of fear and danger (Lachmann, 1988; Jackson, 2011). However, research by Rowe and Hutton has revealed that even graffiti is not simply a nihilistic and destructive behaviour, but one in which perceptions of criminality were leavened by aesthetic judgements (Rowe and Hutton, 2012, p. 66). Acknowledging the earlier work of Halsey and Young (2006), who state that the presence of graffiti, usually
occurring in dysfunctional urban settings, plays a crucial role in the alternative reading of urban spaces (Rowe and Hutton, 2012, p. 67). Rowe and Hutton present quantifiable evidence that suggests that, despite its negative portrayals and consequences, graffiti can be considered a creative art form that bears favourable aesthetic traits (ibid, p. 81). However, graffiti acts as a catalyst towards further acts of other types of anti-social behaviour (ibid).
109
Expanding further on Rowe and Hutton’s work, Riggle (2010) goes on to discuss the properties of graffiti, and responses towards it from more or a sociological perspective. Riggle presents examples of graffiti that embody a response towards the modernist ideals that influence the permanent urban aesthetic of many towns and cities. Discussing the use of projectors, ‘throwies’ (magnetic objects similar to fridge magnets), manipulation of civil structures such as road signage, and the more conventional means of paint and chalk, Riggle explores the attitudes and responses towards these types of intervention. He draws parallels between the perceptive qualities and behavioural responses towards public art with the visual qualities of graffiti, where he acknowledges that not all graffiti is categorically ‘street art’, as per his earlier definitions.
After describing the circumstances that lead to ‘do-it-yourself urban design’, Gordon Douglas highlights attitudes towards the activity of ‘guerrilla gardening’ – the effects of seeding neglected ‘tree pits’ (Douglas, 2011, p. 10), and similar interventions of users of urban designs in influencing how an urban space is perceived by other users of urban spaces. Douglas firstly acknowledges the popularity behind such design interventions because they coincide with imminent transformations of undesirable urban features into things which enrich the urban experiences. Douglas records the subsequent gentrifications of areas resulting from their increased aesthetic appeal that can destroy communities instead of bringing them together (Douglas, 2011, p. 11).
During the 2000’s, street artist Banksy, became a notoriously sought-after artist.
His primary medium are the non-descript walls of buildings. His art work involving the use of stencils that have the ability to transform boring features into value urban attributes, sought after by celebrity art collectors who spend copious
amounts of money on his ironic stencil art pieces, often extracting bricks of entire walls. The nature of Banksy’s pieces is to provoke thought and convey
messages (Gough, 2012). However, according to Tim Cresswell, reactions towards graffiti are usually aligned to where it can be found (Cresswell, 1992):
110
“Graffiti on the street and the subway takes on the meaning of dirt, disease, and insanity, whereas in a gallery it becomes ‘creativity and insight’…in one place it is bad, and in another it is good” (Creswell, 1992, pp. 342 – 343).
With the acceptance that micro-spatial urban practices such as: “guerrilla and community gardening; housing and retail cooperatives; flash mobbing and other shock tactics; social economies and bartering schemes; ‘empty spaces’
movements to occupy abandoned buildings for a range of purposes; subcultural practices like graffiti/street art, skateboarding and [Parkour]; [and so on]” (Iveson, 2013, p. 941) can change the perception of an urban space (ibid), Iveson mainly focuses on the impact of these interventions on urban politics. Urban politics, in Iveson’s case is essentially referring to democratic ideals that drive the
development of an urban space, where he focuses on DIY urban practices (ibid, p. 945). Building on the ideologies of the ‘BUGA UP’ case study, Iveson
discusses the objectives of the NYSAT (New York Street Advertising Takeover) – a project that carried many similarities to BUGA UP, but with the major difference being that their outputs were carried out in daylight settings (Iveson, 2013, p.
953). The objectives of NYSAT included the engaging of the public, and the visibility of the regulatory responses of civil societies, where the art works of NYSAT participants are washed out in broad daylight with the canvas reset that in turn inspire public response. Therefore, Iveson argues that responses to street art are the establishment of urban democratic politics that ultimately shape the growth of urban spaces, the allowed and encouraged modification of municipal urban spaces and their features (Iveson, 2013, p. 955).
Discussions into the impact and influences of street art chiefly target the social properties associated with the art installation, such as the message conveyed by the piece. As discussed earlier on in this chapter, the physiological properties of art installations can also play a significant role in how they are perceived by the general public, and how they ultimately impact on the use of urban environments.
Briefly discussed is the fact that street art intervention can transform
dysfunctional urban spaces into useful urban fabrics (Verschelden, 2012; Rowe and Hutton, 2012), however, the question is asked: can urban space
transformation be achieved with enhanced visual aesthetics alone?
111
Lee notes that street art, in its graffiti form, can carry political messages or objectives that speak out against societal ideals or the ‘establishment’, where it can be considered as a ‘vernacular lexicon of power and resistance’ (Lee, 2013, p. 308); however, it is the initial aesthetic that captures the attention of the general public (Lee, 2013, p 312). By way of example, Lee writes:
“…a homeless middle-aged man named Pak Nur. Pak Nur’s art form consisted of brightly-coloured philosophical proverbs painted on highly visible walls…Note that artists conceive of the power of art as something universal and moreover, as inducing communication. The street artist’s public is one that is aesthetically caught by the image…” (Lee, 2013, p. 312)
According to research carried out by Nasar, street art can be broadly described as symbolic aesthetics. This informal act often contains variables that “reflect the individual’s internal representation of the building and meanings associated with that representation and building” (Nasar, 1994, p. 382) and contrasts against emotional detachment associated with formal aesthetics found in criticisms of urban design. Formal aesthetics refer to the composite structures of “shape, proportion, rhythm, scale, complexity, [colour], illumination, shadowing, order, hierarchy, spatial relations, incongruity, ambiguity, surprise, and novelty” (ibid).
Focusing on the formal aesthetics, Nasar argues that the majority of urban designs have the objective of creating ‘pleasantness’ in urban environments where these are typically monotonous (Nasar, 1994, pp. 380, 397). For ‘interest’
and ‘excitement’, Nasar argues that it is those urban spaces that encourage high complexity and higher ‘atypicality’ (ibid, p. 397), where typically this can be achieved through the introduction of vernacular practices, where complexity is recognisable or appreciated in familiar designs (ibid, p. 394).
Kirillova et al highlight the importance of aesthetic judgement and differentiates it from art by stressing that aesthetics are observed through all of the senses (Kirillova et al, 2014, p. 284), where Pink argues that this is possible through the power of suggestion as witnessed in her ethnographic studies (Pink, 2009).
Reflecting on Stoller’s earlier theory on the relationship between sensory
112
aesthetics and memory that guides suggestion who writes “the human body is not principally a text; rather, it is consumed by a world filled with smells, textures, sights, sounds and tastes, all of which trigger cultural memories” (Stoller, 1997, p.
85). Pink concludes that sensory memories, described as “our experiences of place – and its social, physical and tangible component [that are] inextricable from the invocation, creation and reinvestment of memories” (Pink, 2009, p. 38), are achieved through the embodiment of practices that strengthen relationships between memory and place (ibid). In order for an aesthetic element to be
appreciated by the community is serves, it must be able to relate to the positive experiences associated with the positive memories and resident cultures of its users. However, it remains unclear as to whether such an assumption can justify positive affections towards street art installations when applied to descriptively dysfunctional urban fabrics – those that are unable to attract pedestrians and have a reputation as being unpopular.