There are different kinds of graffiti; some are beautiful and/or creative images, while others are simply names scrawled on public surfaces. Whatever the context, all graffiti holds a political message, whether explicit or implicit. The very act of ‘defacing’ public space is rebellious, an act of resistance to or defiance of authority or tradition.

This kind of resistance informs us of wider constructs of power. Public space, while theoretically belonging to everyone, is under the control of government. Marking a public surface can be perceived as an act of resistance to the authority of local government, a real or imagine class of elites, or the entire economic-political system. Because of its defiant tone, graffiti is often characterized by anonymity, affording the author to express themselves in ways they would not otherwise (Islam, 2010). There are instances, however, where the authors feel comfortable exposing themselves, and these often occur when they are famed individuals, already renowned for their defiance of the hegemonic state. They may be members of minorities, whether ethnic or ideological, but they typically have connections to the regime they are resisting, whether through influence or affluence, or else they would probably not feel secure revealing their names. Lord Byron was infamous in his time for participating in Romanticism (MacCarthy, 2002), a revolt against aristocratic social and political norms, and his name can be seen carved in stone in buildings across Europe. While the type of graffiti is not particularly scandalous—they are minimal and usually on foreign soil—I would argue that the political importance of graffiti is the act itself.

References

Islam, Gazi

2010 Backstage Discourse and the Emergence of Organizational Voices: Exploring Graffiti and Organization. Journal of Management Inquiry 19(3):246-260

MacCarthy, Fiona

2002 Byron: Life and Legend

Rafferty, Pat

1991 Discourse on Difference. Visual Anthropology Review 7(2):77-84