Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
For my parents
Rafael Schacter
University College London, UK
II
Contents
List of Figures
Foreword
Preface
Introduction
ix
xv
xix
Part I: Ornament
1
Ornament
15
Consensual Ornamentation
53
3 Agonistic Ornamentation
91
Order
133
161
189
Conclusion
221
viii
Postscript
Acknowledgements
235
247
Bibliography
Index
249
267
List of Figures
xx
xxi
xxii
xxiii
xxiv
xxvii
2
2
6
9
11
16
17
18
20
22
23
24
25
29
33
1.11 The image as mind trap. Revok, Untitled, Los Angeles, USA, 2010
1.12 Graffiti as parerga, as frame and content in the same moment.
Vova Vorotniov, Spray as Index 1, Warsaw, Poland, 2011
1.13 Embellishing the painted-out remnants of his old works after they
had been erased by local authorities, Homer added what he terms
subcultural nuances to these ghostly, blocked-out markings,
decorating the scars that remained from his earlier efforts.
Homer, Post-Buffing, Kiev, Ukraine, 2009
1.14 Zedz and Maurer United Architects (MUA).
Rendering by Visualdata.org
1.15 Remed, Untitled, Leon, Spain, 2011
1.16 San, Untitled, Besanon, France, 2011
1.17 San, Untitled [detail], Besanon, France, 2011
1.18 The logical corollary of showing graffiti within the gallery space.
Akim, Leistungsschau Part 3, Berlin, Germany, 2011
35
54
54
55
58
37
38
41
43
45
46
49
62
62
65
66
68
71
72
74
78
79
81
83
84
85
List of Figures
xi
88
89
93
94
94
97
98
101
103
104
105
105
107
107
110
110
111
114
114
115
115
118
119
121
121
122
123
xii
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
127
162
165
165
167
167
171
171
173
176
179
182
185
185
List of Figures
xiii
185
191
192
195
195
196
197
197
199
201
205
207
209
211
212
213
213
215
218
223
225
225
227
227
230
230
232
233
233
238
239
242
244
Colour Plates
1
xiv
Foreword
Dr Schacter asked me to write this foreword because he knows that for over
20 years I have been OCD with graffiti. I started young like many practitioners and
I performed the rituals that are expected of the young. I never could explain to
people outside of the culture the genius that I knew graffiti was, the rebellion and
the structure that formed and informed it. Dr S. has done just that with this book, he
has united what has always been maligned as a violent and destructive act against
society with intense theories and thoughts that help to reveal this spray-painted
rose from the dark leaved brambles that lobbyists against graffiti have covered it
in since its inception. Those special interests have a lot to gain by quashing graffiti
and yet counter intuitively a lot to lose by suppressing it. The deep journey that
this book is brings us to a place that uncovers that binary and allows the readers to
decide for themselves what they think about graffiti in their cities.
In New York City, multi-national corporations, wealthy interests and corrupt
politicians have stolen the city from the inhabitants and made it almost impossible
for the majority of folk to get ahead. They have raised the prices and changed
the rules, effectively downgrading the people who built and toiled for their
lifetimes there. The tactics used by multi-national conglomerates and corrupt or
inept politicians that have profit rather than the people as their bottom-line have
marginalized and militarized many in the urban tribe. Neo-martial law and policestate behavior, where imprisonment is seen as a necessity for anyone dissenting
against the regime, have increased war-like behaviors from the people precipitating
stronger responses from the government. Ever since 9/11 total police control and
the fascist-like imposition to respect the authority of the police and state has been
on the rise, as they connect those corrupt forces as our only hope to be saved from
the artificial threat of terrorism. When revered journalists are easily manipulated by
government lies and an imposed classist culture forces all relationships to be based
on commerce, graffiti may be one of the last options of public criticism and dissent
left (yea I said it, all hope for the future depends on graffiti). I saw the connection
of this rise of global fascism masked by a neo-liberal ideal of hyper-capitalism with
xvi
the duty of the graffiti writer to dissent loud and clear when Dr S. wrote about
Habermass description of the refeudalization of public space at the end of the
19th century. This book has parts that stand out to me as a clear call to action.
Maybe. Or thats just the innate selfish radical in me, blind to other ideas,
projecting all that I want graffiti to be, only seeing my own reflection where ever I
look. Based on my coup dtat understanding of what graffiti is, Dr S. would group
me in his copyrighted academic term Agonistic Ornamenter, placing me neatly in
a row and column, setting me aside for further study.
With the Agonistic sided for the moment, Dr S. delves deeply into what he terms
the Consensual forms of graffiti, the ones that many can agree on, the pretty stuff,
the ironic pieces that make the disillusioned masses giggle. The pretty stencils and
the posters and the re-appropriating of pop culture icons to make a message, Stop
Racism!, but in fact say nothing because of the inherent consensuality. The so-called
art that actually serves the capitalist captains by prettying up the hood and raises
rents and dislocates the inhabitants; the happy agreeable work that the masters
allow for now and will buff once you turn your back, the egotistical sell-out work
that you mask in benevolence toward mankind and justify by claiming outcomes
of quasi-social justice yet the only tangible product being a clean quality of life
corner so the next corporate pig can plant their businesss flag. Ouch, thats harsh,
as if I were judging the Consensual and its recent strangle hold on the conversation
of graffiti and it seems like Im saying that this consensual emperor is wearing no
clothes. The Consensual Ornamenters make real pretty work and even better by
the accepted premise of the day, they make that money. Who am I to be such a
smug judge of others hard work? Dr S. talks about this too when he writes on the
increasing manufactured polarization of our world views. He alludes to the fact
that media and television are owned by a few wealthy special interests and they
have framed all debates into this bi-polarity of you are either with us or against us,
choose a side, leaving no room for meaningful dialogue of any type, which leads
me to believe that all forms of graffiti can function as the proverbial Lithium for the
masses when notions of right and wrong are so strictly defined. Graffiti can be seen
as a temporary anonymous break from the strictly defined roles that are set for all
members of society and a way to stray from the script we were all given at birth.
Perhaps. In this book we learn of the Ancient Greek spaces that were
architecturally open and by design meant to foster free argument and debate
and they are juxtaposed with the walled off city of today that no one is allowed
to touch unless they pay the fee to advertise their wares; the closed off spaces
that are only welcome to paying customers and the many private spaces taking
over our cities that are intrinsically divided by race and class. Now consider those
physical barriers in position to the philosophical barriers that the capitalistcultural
world-elite has instated via idolizing Mr Ai Weiwei who vandalized Han dynasty
vases and thereby questioned current policies in slave-labor Asia versus the strict
dyslogistic narrative set up against any vandalizing dissenters questioning the
Global North Empire. Everybody else in the world is fair game and encouraged to
destabilize their notions of religion, governance and financial structures in order to
keep them unbalanced, yet once we the people attempt to destabilize the Global
Foreword
xvii
North then we are cast out to the dark corners of the culture and no longer able to
partake in the freedom. When double standards aint seen as double standards, the
propaganda machine is working well. Dr S.s book says to me graffiti can be a way
around the propaganda industrial complex.
And yet there is something problematic in Dr S.s thesis. He divvies up graffiti
into those two modalities, Agonistic and Consensual, and claims that the Agonistic
mode of graffiti is exclusive (amongst other issues) by virtue of the letters being so
hard to read and the practitioners saying that they only do it for those in the know.
He seems to have in some part fallen for the macho braggadocio that so many
insecure practitioners of the Agonistic act out in public which disguise our truth
as much as the seeming unintelligibility of our tags. He and many practitioners
have accepted other peoples definitions at face value for lack of understanding
that they could come up with their own explanations of their actions. When a vocal
few assign a label to a group, even when false, parts of that label start to become
the groups identity. After realizing ones identity has been fixed by outside forces
rather than ones own truth, those identities can be rethunk.
A meditation on graffiti writers: graffiti writers do, as Dr S. claims, make up the
Parergon of the city as canvas, that is graffiti writers make the frame of the painting
that is our urban existence, yet it is a philosophical frame in as much as a Tibetan
Buddhist Mandala is a philosophical work of art. Just as with the Tibetan Buddhist
Mandala, graffiti is not meant to last long but instead its function is wrapped up
in ritual and deep understanding that all is temporary and life is but a dream.
This tag too shall pass. Its rather freeing to think tagging the walls of your city is
a path towards enlightenment. What seems like agonistic aggression is in fact the
acceptance of difficult truths and the physical reality and actions that go along
with that acceptance.
Maybe. The more you look around the world at the graffiti on the walls the more
you realize graffiti has no owner, no one truth and no definition, this painting on
walls thing belongs to the people, no one subculture can claim it. Just because New
York City and Subway Art made that type of graffiti look cool does not mean New
York City owns it or can even set rules for how it is to be expressed; and if they try
to then those rules must be broken. To hell with rules when you seek the freedom.
Graffiti is for all, it is made by soccer hooligans and hipsters, it is performed by thugs
and antifa political activists, it is used as propaganda for and against the regime
all over the world, its a way of writing racially charged misogynistic scribblings
in toilet stalls and for bringing a community together around a simple message;
spray cans in peoples hands is a being of its own. This book remains faithful to
a particular narrative about graffiti, the same one that I was raised with but it is
certainly not the only narrative out there.
Dr S. does hint at this openness when he brings up Mouffe and her idea that
agonism is not the struggle between enemies but rather competitors, competing
to express the truth as they know it. Competitors who join the game of their own
volition, with varying reasons behind their motivation, competitors participating
in the game of words, letters and colors; competitors interested in dialogue, not
domination. When looked at like this graffiti is quite simply a public debate, not
the hate crime it is made out to be. Graffiti is open to all and not an inaccessible
subculture that outsiders would box it in to serve their agenda. It can be political
or far removed from politics (which is more revolutionary than joining in their onesided, always-the-same-outcome political games to begin with). Graffiti is a free
democratic tool for bringing freedom to the world so that the world can be free.
Maybe. Its been a tough task for me to write this foreword. I get furious styles
when I think about graffiti. I can politic on it but Id rather just shut up and do it.
Talking about graffiti in an intelligible manner is counter-intuitive to the unspoken
religion of graffiti. I prefer grunts in a circle of fellow practitioners, no philosophical
talk just performance and wonder. As an outsider to many other subcultures I too
enjoy reading theory on those subcultures and to ponder on the hidden-in-plainsight worlds all around me. Dick Hebdiges Subculture introduced me to a few
subcultures I never thought about, mainly the Mods, Punks and Teddy Boys. And
just as Punks and Mods would not want to read theory about their reality because
they live it daily, I cant stand to read any ideas on my subculture. It feels wrong to
me because I perform the rituals, I cant talk about the rituals, that would go against
the ritual. The ritual is the truth of graffiti, and that truth shines bright when one
performs the rituals correctly. It is not to be spoken of or asked questions about,
it is solely to be performed. This book is well thought out and genuine to Dr S.s
experiences yet I as one so immersed in this repetitive doodling on walls feels the
less we say about it the better.
And so by writing this text is Dr S. legitimizing graffiti? Has he just gone and
ruined graffiti for the practitioners? Well I suppose everything must change. No
need to hold on to the past as a zealot and yearn for the good-old days when things
were pure Cornbread-Dondi style. No need to remain fixed in a single identity
becoming the joke that cedes power to the capitalizers by playing into their hands.
Is this book then the definitive approach to graffiti? Impossible. Graffiti is more of
a phantom after reading this book, that is, as much as you write about it as much
as you chase it, you just cant capture it. More doors are opened more revelations
appear, less concrete anything is left because graffiti has this intangible spiritual
connection to it that just cant be contained. This book does not legitimize graffiti
or even set out to capture its pure essence, this book instead gives philosophical
weight so open-minded well-read academics like yourself can see beyond the
repetitive refrains of graffiti being immoral, of it being just about money or just
about crime, just about masculinity or just about risk. This book is an opening,
maybe a door for graffiti writers who are struggling with their own 20-year long
fixed identities and are attempting to break into academia, or the reverse, a door
for academics who want to understand what those writings on the wall are and
seek to put in rows and columns that which is outside of their intelligibility. Though
mostly this book is a tool for slowing down and looking closely at what has been
taken for granted, by outsiders and the practitioners as well, and an opportunity to
begin deconstructing more conventional dogma.
Dumaar Freemaninov,
author of Nov York.
Preface
The tale of graffiti and street-art or what I will here term Independent Public
Art1 is a sea unspeakably vast. Although less than 50 years old in its modern
incarnation (and widely argued to have emerged on the East Coast of the US in
the late 1960s), this vernacular art-form has been transported to nearly every
corner of the globe, spawning hundreds of distinct styles (from the traditional
technique of spraycan art to various highly conceptual modes of urban
installation), generating thousands of local approaches (from the pixao of
So Paulo see Figure P.1 to the Salvajismo of Buenos Aires see Figure P.2),
eliciting innumerable committed adherents to its cause (of every possible class
and culture). Whilst its status as the worlds most practiced form of outsider art
is I believe unparalleled, Independent Public Art as a distinct aesthetic genre has
only very rarely been subject to any vigorous form of academic examination; in
fact with the exception of Jean Baudrillard and Roland Barthes whose brief
remarks on the practices of graffiti are in my opinion the most insightful and
profound on the genre as whole has so far garnered2 its scholarly analysis
has failed to produce a study investigating the dense materiality of the images
created, their status when examined from an explicitly materialcultural position.
Independent Public Art, a term first brought to my attention by the theorist Javier
Abarca, is an umbrella label which incorporates all forms of autonomously produced
aesthetic production in the public sphere. It thus naturally encompasses practices which
have been called graffiti or street-art yet also includes actions which may exceed these
traditional designations, building an assemblage out of variance through its intentionally
broad nature. What is crucial, and quite clear by the term itself however, is that it does
not include works produced in the interior domain, works outside of what could be
considered as public space.
2
See both Baudrillards essay Kool Killer (1993 [1976]) and Barthes text entitled
Cy Twombly (1991 [1979]).
Preface
xxi
Though there have been texts focussing on issues such as gang graffiti,3 youth
subculture,4 criminality,5 and the culture and history of New York spraycan art6
(as well as a myriad of illustrated coffee books which are almost totally devoid
of rigour), what I argue has been missing is an approach examining the formal,
intentional, and practice-based aspects of these contemporary epigraphs, one
which ethnographically explores both the images and their modes of construction,
the product and the performance, the relic and ritual, the ornament and order.
Teasing out the aesthetic and material relationships which emerge from
the realm of Independent Public Art, Ornament and Order will thus focus on
this global aesthetic movement as it stands today, exploring the plethora
of acts which emerge from its field of practice. Based on a multi-sited, two
year period of fieldwork embedded with an artistic collective in Madrid
(a dialogical project which is in fact still ongoing), a wider research project
conducted with over 100 artists worldwide7 as well as a number of high
profile curatorial projects, the data collected incorporates the entire range
of possible actions within the Independent Public Art movement: my closest
group of informants the collective Noviciado Nueve with whom I undertook
my in-depth period of fieldwork perfectly encapsulate this wide scope.
3
P.2Chu, Untitled,
Buenos Aires,
Argentina, 2013
xxii
P.33TTMan
and Remed,
Untitled, Madrid,
Spain, 2009
Containing five key members, 3TTMan, Eltono, Nano 4814, Remed, and Spok,
the individuals within the group produced work which extends from the most
apparently artistic (such as a form of contemporary muralism see Figure P.3) to
the most seemingly vandalistic (such as the bombing8 technique of traditional
graffiti see Figure P.4), working in what I will come to term the most consensual
to the most agonistic styles of public ornamentation. They thus provide an almost
perfect distillation of the Independent Public Art movement today and are used
to move outward from concrete specificities to broader theoretical discussions.
Moreover, these same five actors were embedded within a global network
of Independent Public Artists which I argue functions akin to the associated
fraternities formed by medieval guilds (Sennett 2008: 60). These dense webs of
relations not only helped me to gather numerous other informants within Madrid
(such as the artists Nuria Mora, Daniel San Muoz, and Suso33), in Spain as a
whole (such as the twins Pelucas and Liqen from Vigo, Sixe Paredes from Barcelona
and Dems33 from Elche), as well as all around the globe (such as MOMO and
the legendary Cap in New York, Los Contratistas in Nuevo Leon, the collectives
Doma and Fase in Buenos Aires, and Gold Peg and Petro in London). What
unites all these various individuals however, as all the various informants whose
stories and practices have been incorporated into this text, was their equivalent
and unconditional commitment to the practice of Independent Public Art.
8
P.4 Nano4814, San, and others unknown, Untitled, Vigo, Spain, 2010
P.5Noviciado
Nueve (and
friends), Belvs,
France, 2012
These were not part-time painters or hobbyists, not neophytes or novices. They
may have embraced the passion of an amateur, the search for pleasure rather
than gain that the enthusiast evinces, but these were actors whose commitment
to autonomous aesthetic production in the public sphere came to supersede
(as this book will here argue) the often quite divergent formal aesthetics they
constructed. The group of individuals with whom I conducted my fieldwork were
thus part of a tightly linked worldwide network of comparable practitioners, fulltime members of the global Independent Public Art world who engaged within it
as an all-embracing way of life, who established a communal bond through their
embedment within this visual regime. Yet, even as this is the case, the majority
of the arguments made within this book still function for the vast majority of
Independent Public Art seen on our city streets as a whole, for the multitude
of acts which have been produced by part-time practitioners, by enthusiasts
and devotees who may find other methods of sustaining themselves outside of
the wider art world; they follow the formal, intentional, and ritual aspects of the
discipline that are in many ways immutable, they follow the aesthetic and ethical
characteristics of the practice which abide irrelevant of the level of expertise
that the practitioner in question may possess. And they can thus reach out from
the tangibility of local action to address more global concerns surrounding
Independent Public Art, speaking not just for the group with whom I undertook
my study but for the discourse as a whole.
Located in Madrid for the majority of my research, my fieldwork did also take
place further afield, travelling with my highly itinerant informants as they conducted
Preface
xxv
projects across the world. Journeying from Mallorca in Spain to Monterrey in Mexico,
from New York to London and back again (as well as meeting artists from all over
the world in Madrid itself the studio my informants occupied providing a basecamp for countless visitors to the city), it was my informants reaction to space that
became key to my study, their understanding of the various urban environments
they inhabited that became indispensable to my understanding of their practices.
Whilst there are of course crucial material divergences within the various cities they
occupied (London and Madrid, to take a brief example, having highly variant artistic
modus operandi due to the overabundance of CCTV in the former site, the highly
permeable boundary between faade and street that is so common in the latter),
what remained congruent was the obsession and fervour for the public sphere
that all my informants displayed, a commitment to concrete action in the street,
to physical performance in public space, which remained consistent wherever in
the world they were. Rather than any specific location in itself then, the boundaries
of the community examined within this text were delineated by practice rather
than place, bounded by an understanding of space rather than space itself. It was a
community of practice rather than a physically bound community that I was hence
immersed within during my fieldwork (without suggesting that any community
can be truly delimited by a circumscribed field), a multi-sited project in which I was
rooted with specific people rather than within a specific place. The principal fieldsite relevant to this work if any that is could thus be argued to be the street in the
contemporary global city (or in the alpha city as they have been called). The street
was the place where the overwhelming majority of my fieldwork took place, where
I would both watch and partake in my informants very public way of life, in their
daily enacting of what they would term street-life (I can only think Randy Crawford
was to blame for this). And thus even whilst this focus on the street means I lose out
on a huge amount of site-specific data which I collected throughout my fieldwork
losing out on discussing the intricacies of place which anthropology is a discipline
so famed for what I believe I gain is a more comprehensive understanding of
Independent Public Art as a whole, a practice produced by highly cosmopolitan,
highly itinerant social actors. Following James Cliffords (1997) imperative to focus
on hybrid, cosmopolitan experiences as much as on rooted, native ones (ibid.: 24),
this monograph will thus take our understanding of Independent Public Art away
from many of the established and singular locations in which it is often examined
and instead push into the more global, connected networks that this aesthetic
discourse truly resides.
Focussing on the work my informants produced in the public sphere itself, this
text will thus concentrate on what I define as a practice of urban ornamentation,
an aesthetic working through an equally adjunctive and decorative essence,
one which can only exist amidst the dirt and noise of the street itself. Whilst my
informants had numerous skills and worked in a multitude of visual arenas then
(from design work and illustration to commercial muralism and contemporary art),
these other, subsidiary practices will be set to one side within this book: although
this could seem to in some way suspend my informants lives, to exclude many of
its more mundane aspects, this suspension will enable a clearer focus on the way
the images they produced in the public sphere themselves function, giving us the
depth to examine them as both material deposit and ephemeral trace, as objects
within a latent capacity to attract and hold our attention. As such, issues such as the
(now waning) interest in street-art from the conventional art-market, or the (still
growing) popularity of street-art guided tours will be purposefully disregarded
within this text: both of these markets (the artistic as much as the touristic) are
governed by forces which flow beyond the agency of my informants themselves,
forces which may in fact often run contrary to the wishes of the individuals in
question. And thus question of whether or not artists can be blamed for gentrifying
low-income or industrial areas of the city then (Zukin 1993),9 the subject of whether
or not they can be labelled as the archetypal post-Fordist workers due to their fluid
working status (Gielen 2009), are issues which I have no desire to directly address
within this book. Rather than flowing directly toward the relationship between
capital and culture (a relationship which I would suggest the inalienable products
of Independent Public Art are inherently disconnected from),10 it is the continued
need to produce this form of work irrelevant of base financial gain (and often at
considerable cost and danger to the actor themselves) that I am more interested
in here exploring, a desire, an addiction, which cannot be explained by the force
of the market alone.11 Whilst the various ethical paths my informants were often
forced to navigate will be at points examined then, it is the factor that demarcated
them as a coherent social group their practices of urban ornamentation which
will be the main focus of this text, their insurgent production in the public sphere
which will be at the nucleus of all that follows.
Preface xxvii
P.6Noviciado
Nueve, Madrid,
Spain, 2012
Rather than the traditional focus on themes of vandalism and art, gangs and
pollution, this study will present two central (and eponymous) arguments: In the
first section of the book entitled Ornament I aim to take very seriously the
suggestion by the architectural theorist Jonathan Hill (2006) that [g]raffiti and
sgraffito ornament a building, that graffiti is in fact additive rather than reductive
(ibid.: 176): As artefacts which are both adjunctive and decorative the technical
prerequisites of all ornamentation Independent Public Art will be judged to be
archetypically ornamental, a factor which not only bestows upon it an equivalent
power and precarity, but which places it within the wider debate (and wider
anxiety) over ornament in the architectural canon as a whole. Examining the
meanings my informants ascribe to their images as well as the communicative
schemata emerging out of their very form, the practices will be split into two
further subdivisions (termed Consensual and Agonistic Ornamentation), subsets
which will come to reflect two quite distinct politico-aesthetic responses to the
city itself, which focus on the discursive potentialities of these figural artefacts.
In the second section of the book entitled Order it will be the immaterial
residue of my informants spatial acts (rather than the material remnants), the
explicitly performative, practice-based elements of their aesthetic production
which will be examined. The section will thus move away from notions of
meaning examined in the preceding chapters and attempt to track how my
informants cultural production comes to both reflect and actively structure their
moral and social worlds. As practices which are embedded within such issues
as formality, performativity, traditionality, and play, the social and moral chaos
they apparently present will be interpreted as a set of highly framed, orthopraxic
gestures, ritual acts in which commitment to the group envelope is physically
instantiated, engraved onto the skin of the city. It is hence Independent Public
Art as a system of communication and a system of action, its meaning and its
practice I intend on examining within this text. Utilising both ethnographic and
critical tools, employing artefactual case studies and fieldwork vignettes, it is an
aesthetic which both encodes symbolic propositions about the world as well as
intends to change the world itself that we will explore, an aesthetic which is both
ornament and order at the same time.
Introduction
The actual order of things is precisely what popular tactics turn to their
own ends [] Though elsewhere it is exploited by a dominant power or
simply denied by an ideological discourse, here order is tricked by an art.
Michel de Certeau
What is termed Banksys Tunnel is the original site of the Cans Festival of 2008.
Please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btm6Zq2E9OI for a video of Terrys
installation.
I.1 and I.2 The Leake Street Classicist, London, England, 2011
Introduction
In its charming hue of (concrete) grey,2 Terrys renegade mural (or perhaps his
traditionalist trompe loeil), reinstated what was a manifestly moral3 order within
the tunnel, an ornament attempting to counter the debauched mayhem that
surrounded it. It presented a neo-classical critique of what was deemed a pollutive,
lawless visuality, an ornamental construction implicitly deriding (and yet, as we will
see, implicitly fearing) the scopic order that it expunged.
Not only deeply condescending of course the first time, as the press release
clarified, that a qualified chartered architect has done a piece in the Leake Street
Tunnel (Art Below 2011), a work produced with the explicit desire (as noted in the
BBC interview) to rehabilitate the minds and hearts of the graffiti artists who would
encounter it the painting completed by the Leake Street Classicist will in fact
here be seen to be inadvertently illuminating. It will be seen to allude toward the
irrevocably intertwined relationship between ornament and order, between ethics
and aesthetics, between our material and social worlds; it will be seen to allude to
the inherently ornamental status of all Independent Public Art itself (as equivalently
ornamental as Terrys neo-classical representation), toward the phobia and unease
that these insurgent ornaments bring forth (and thus the common necessity for
their destruction). And, as such, the revolutionary act that Terry provides us with
will not only serve as a prime example of the Latourian iconoclash which surrounds
the aesthetic we will here be examining the fact that images are continually
involved in the destruction of other images, yet that this very destruction only
gives rise to yet more of them but can act as the perfect starting point for our
examination of the convolved relationship between ornament and order, the
binary pairing which will come to frame this work as a whole, the binary pairing
held within what Jacques Derrida would call a parergonic embrace.
An Architectonic Public
Ornament and order are inextricably linked. Not only counterparts for thousands
of years within the annals of architectural history (from Vitruvius to Alberti, from
Sullivan to Venturi and Scott Brown), the words themselves, as the philosopher
and metaphysician Ananda Coomaraswamy has argued (1939), are in fact
etymologically coupled through the Greek word kosmos: primarily meaning order
[] with reference to the due order or arrangement of things, and, secondarily,
denoting ornament, whether of horses, women, men, or speech (ibid.: 380). This
intertwined derivation can be understood to lead to a number of other logical
corollaries; the original basis of Greek architectural terminology, the designation
of the Doric etc. orders [] the connection between an original order and a later
2
ornament (ibid.: 380); the significance of the term the conferring of an order
such as a knighthood, an OBE etc. or a decoration by another name (ibid.: 378);
the metaphor of putting ones hair in order to adorn, to beautify it a matter, as
he continues, of an innate decorum (ibid.: 380); the link between the Sanskrit term
for ornament, aram (denoting preparedness, ability, suitability, fitness), and its
usage in reference to the due ordering of the sacrifice, rather than to its adornment
(ibid.: 377). What we thus have is a whole host of associations that Coomarawamy
teases out in an attempt to disparage the aesthetic view of art, to separate the
confusion between the (objective) beauty of order and the (subjectively) pleasant
(ibid.: 3812). Ornamentation, decoration4, terms that are most often (and most
often mistakenly) understood as something adventitious or luxurious, added to
their utilities but not essential to their efficacy, must therefore be seen to have
originally
implied a completion or fulfillment of the artifact or other object in question
[] to decorate an object or person originally meant to endow the object or
person with its or his necessary accidents, with a view to proper operation; []
the aesthetic senses of the words are secondary to their practical connotation;
whatever was originally necessary for the completion of anything, and thus
proper to it, naturally giving pleasure to the user (ibid.: 376).
Decoration was thus here conceived as having classically denoted an order of the
most literal kind, not something disconnected, additional, or purely aesthetic (in
the anaesthetizing sense, following Susan Buck-Morss), not something produced
from an intention to please, but from an intention towards utility, intelligibility,
essence, through completion, communication, orderliness (ibid.: 3812). Not only
do we have the established etymological links between ornament and order
however, there is also, as Gottfried Semper explained (1856), a deep connection
between ornament and the creation of a larger, divine harmony, the rich and
precise Hellenic language connecting adornment to the highest law of nature and
world order, connecting it to the creation of a sacred order (Semper in Mahall and
Serbest 2009: 39). As Antoine Picon (2003) has gone on to suggest, prior to the 18th
century, ornament, working in a parallel modality to both order and proportion,
was understood to have expressed the fundamental regularity of the universe,
and above all, its fecundity (ibid.: 298); having no connotation of gratuity, of
supplementarity, it sprang from necessity, giving evidence of both the creativity
and the beauty of the cosmic order (ibid.: 298). Much like John Ruskins ornamental
ideal, his ornamental morality, ornament was understood as a reflective emblem,
representing a divinely ordered natural world and the fundamental tenets of
4
Introduction
Introduction
As Escobar goes on to explain, however, the use of the term ornatto by sixteenthcentury Spaniards a word, as detailed above, typically denoting decoration and
beautification was in fact equally understood through a sense of creating order
as well as embellishing the city (ibid.: 204). For instance, as Escobar continues, in
1544, Prince Philip argued the importance of opening a new street from the Alcazar
to the center of Madrid claiming that it [serves the] ornatto of this town and [is] a
public work (ibid.: 203), a use of the term stressing structural cohesion rather than
aggrandizing enhancement. In a similar way, policia, understood in more robust
terms as civility, was likewise used to express the pursuit of grandeur, or authority,
in urban form:
In some instances, as when Sotomayor [the corregidor, or chief magistrate of
Madrid] writes that demolishing a block of buildings will serve the ornatto
and policia of the Plaza Mayor, the term seems to be equated with a sense of
formal order. Yet when he claims an enlarged bread market will serve the good
governance and policia of Madrid, policia, is more correctly equated with a
notion of social order that is achieved by a well-organized polity (ibid.: 204).
Entirely intermeshed with one other then, able to both substitute and reinforce its
accomplice, policia and ornatto functioned quite clearly as two parts of a whole, as
principles which could both reflect and uphold one another. Through their material
enaction, the topography of Madrid became permeated with what Escobar (2004)
terms the principles of good government, providing a physical and metaphorical
representation of the beneficence of the king (ibid.: 369). The very structure of
the city, its architectonic ornamentation (such as seen within the uniformity of
the architectural elevations in the Plaza Mayor), was hence able to advance the
Hapsburg ideological message of political order in spatial terms (Escobar 2003:
205), policia and ornatto coming to establish an immaterial social order through a
materially formal one.
Of course, the entangled relationship between ornament and order can be
traced back much further in the historical record than the Spanish Renaissance,
being an attachment most prominently celebrated during the era of the Greek
city-states.5 Often explored through the central presence of the agora (a term
literally translated as to gather together or place of assembly) a site which
contained few visual barriers between events occurring at the same time, a site in
which one did not experience physical compartmentalization (Sennett 1998: 20)
and could thus experience synoikismos (an incorporation of social groups into
a cohesive civic union) this locale is believed to have refined and shaped the
potential for free argument and debate within ancient Greek society as a whole,
a space which did not simply reflect the democratic ideal, but in fact physically
enabled its formation. It was thus the surfaces and the volume of the agora
5
As Josef Chytry has argued however (2004), the Eurocentric obsession with
Ancient Greece (that I myself can be seen to be beholden to) eschews many other
locations where civic space and civic justice are intertwined, namely sites such as
Islamic Andalusia (al-Andalus), the Ancient Mexican city-states, and the cosmic-states
of classical HinduBuddhist kingdoms in south and southeast Asia (ibid.: 102).
Indeed, it has even been argued that the famous Parthenon frieze, rather
than depicting a festal procession as often thought, in fact portrays the sacrifice of
the daughters of the Athenian king, Erechtheus (the key foundation myth of Athena).
As Joan B. Connelly has explained (1996), the very name Parthenon can be seen to
have emerged not from Athenas epithet Parthenos, but from the term the maidens
quarters, or the place of the maidens (in reference to the sacrificed virgins), further
10
Introduction
11
Through focusing upon the ornamentation and ordering of the city from a
grassroots8 rather than institutional standpoint however, focusing on a form of
architectural appropriation assumed by civil or informal actors, social actors
coming from outside the official institutionalised domain of urban planning
and urban politics, it is the organic evolutions that these groups produce that
will now be followed, the evolutions which come to embody a different notion
of urbanity from that which is evident in planned developments (Groth
and Corijn 2005: 506). Rather than examining the hegemonic impositions of
order as undertaken by individuals such as the Terrys (both father and son),
it is a practice which comes to question and subvert the conventions, codes
and laws of architecture (Hill 1998a: 36) that I now aim to follow, a mode of
illegal architecture, a civic practice that functions through the public domain
of the street rather than the private realm of a familiar building site (ibid.: 11).
Examining a popular aesthetic practice which comes to insert itself into contested
territorialized spaces (Spyer 2008: 525), a border aesthetic that inhabits a place
at authoritys edge (ibid.: 546), in which pleasure is derived from the mis-use
of form (Hill 1998a: 48) we will then find a modern practice of epigraphy which
is inseparable from the modern polis, both physically ingrained onto its body
and enmeshed within its very idea. Whilst these practices may be of what at
first seems a transgressive nature, they will come to be seen to flow from the
same civic essence as many of their more institutional relatives, to contain a set
of ethico-aesthetic principles which link to wider notions of the good city as
well as to the specific complexities of the group dynamic itself. And it is thus an
8
12
Whilst there are a number of artists within the Independent Public Art sphere
whose work commonly involves the construction of built architecture (such as Akay
and Adams & E.B.Itso amongst others), I will be bypassing this style of practice in order
to concentrate on the more habitual material forms which emerge from this aesthetic
milieu. Nevertheless, and as I will go on to argue in the next chapter, as all the works
discussed here are considered to be architectural ornamentation, all their producers
will be seen as insurgent architects.
Part I
Ornament
1
Ornament
The man of our times who daubs the walls with erotic symbols to
satisfy an inner urge is a criminal or degenerate [] With children
it is a natural phenomenon: their first artistic expression is to scrawl
on the walls erotic symbols. But what is natural to the Papuan and
the child is a symptom of degeneration in the modern man.
Adolf Loos
[W]e are all of us criminals by instinct. It is part of our very nature [] If we act
in defiance of custom or reinterpret custom to suit our private convenience we
commit a crime; yet all creativity, whether it is the work of the artist or the scholar
or even of the politician, contains within it a deep-rooted hostility to the system
as it is. On that account creativity is mad, it is criminal, but it is also divine.
Human society would have died out long ago if it were not for the fact that there
have always been inspired individuals who were prepared to break the rules.
Edmund Leach
16
1.1 Nano at
work, Madrid,
Spain, 2009
18
Youd turn around and he would have disappeared, only to then spot him lagging
behind in a doorway marking up the final arrow or filling in the last bit of ink. A
final flourish with the implement at hand (whether a marker, a can, a key), and
then an immediate departure from the scene.
1.33TTMan,
Untitled (Carteles)
[detail], Madrid,
Spain, 2008
Ornament
19
With 3TTMan4 its the carteles that first spring to mind,5 these unmissable,
uncompromising, polychromatic collages which he would produce in the very
centre of the city. On Gran Via, on San Bernado, huge 20-foot-long productions
lining the key arteries of the city, works formed on top of the densely packed
palimpsests that were the (semi-legal) bill-posters which consumed nearly every
single vacant or neglected edifice in the city. For 3TTMan, it was considered to be his
first successful venture in the street, by no means his earliest artistic foray into this
arena, but the first project he thought really connected, that he was fully content
with. Unlike Nano whose City-Lights project (see Plate 4) had in fact been a huge
inspiration for 3TTMan in his search for a new way method of production in the
city 3TTMan disliked working directly on the surface of the citys walls (the stone
is good hed say, it doesnt make sense for me to work there), his previous works
thus for the most part having been produced on what is termed street-furniture,
on traffic signs, recycling containers, concrete bollards and the like. It was not that
he disliked other forms of illicit visual production that worked directly onto the
street, simply for him it did not feel like the right surface for his work.6 In coming to
use the bill-posters as a site of production,7 however, an already present addition
to the city, an already present canvas to be re-worked in situ, 3TTMan managed to
find a site he felt fully liberated to work upon. He would thus play with both the
words and the imagery, destabilizing and challenging them, trying to make people
enjoy rather than just disdain or ignore the posters. It was not simply a project
aimed at questioning notions of consumption and consumerism that 3TTMan
aimed to produce here, it wasnt a direct form of adbusting or culture-jamming
however; the work on the carteles was about taking a form of communication
imposed to your eyes, something outside the field of relationality, and turning it
into something you could connect to, something that you could think about in a
more interesting way. As he once told me, I just want to make the people who pass
by laugh, to turn the carteles into something you can interact with, to put some life
back into the space. It was thus all about the medium and the location for 3TTMan,
all about playing with what was at hand; it was about working with, dtourning the
very materiality of the city.
4
This pseudonym, meaning three-headed man (Trois-Tte-Man), also acts as
an almost omnipresent image within 3TTMans public work. Meant to suggest the
manifold possibilities of every situation (or as he describes it, three ways of thinking in
the same body), it works against the dichotomy of good-bad and instead suggests a
more equivocal state.
5
As previously said with Nanos choquitos, please see the carteles as just one
element of 3TTMans all-embracing oeuvre.
6
And not that this meant he never worked on this particular plane, recently
finding ways to work around that specific prohibition; for example, painting upon
the temporary breezeblock barriers that were used to prevent access to abandoned
buildings, working within deserted building sites, on sheet-metal, and, of late, working
by adding cement to a wall (again always of an abandoned building, or one in a state of
deep disrepair) and then carving away an image from that newly lain surface (see the
image on the front cover as an example).
7
Or postproduction as Nicolas Bourriaud (2002) would perhaps term it.
20
1.43TTMan,
Untitled (Carteles),
Madrid, Spain,
2010
Ornament
21
its message (Belting 2005: 304), through their being scored onto an architectural
body (in the former case) or a palimpsestic commercial residue (in the latter). To
ornament, as Oleg Grabar has suggested (1992), the act of putting something on
something else rather than a term attempting to describe the specific nature
of what is put (ibid.: 22) can thus here be seen to be exactly borne out. These
sgraffitos (whether the most elementary tag or the most complex mural, whether
a kinetic installation or a wheat-paste poster), are all material forms placed upon
supplementary surfaces, and must therefore be primarily understood through
their additional, subsidiary nature. Consequently, what I will first be arguing
within this chapter is that all my informants public aesthetic production must be
understood to be fundamentally ornamental in this adjunctive sense, they are
works which only exist through the body of a secondary medium and are hence
steered, activated though the how of the city itself.
Furthermore, be it again Nanos choquitos or 3TTMans carteles (or for that
matter 3TTMans further work on concrete [see front cover], Nanos City-Lights
project [see Plate 4], Eltonos confetti graffiti [see Plate 2], Remeds polychromatic
calligraphy [see Plate 6], or Spoks futuristic, comedic murals [see Plate 7]), these
now unambiguously adjunctive artefacts all functioned within the sphere of the
decorative, of the beautiful, within the realm of what Brett (2005) has termed visual
pleasure.8 Working thorough both a public and yet simultaneously intimate
form of visual pleasure, a material sensuousness and playfulness which may act
as a marker of social recognition, perceptual satisfaction, psychological reward
[or] erotic delight (Brett 2005: 4), these artefacts embraced the captivation and
gratification that the figural admits, the enchantment that both the production
and consumption of images provide. Whether in their most overtly aggressive
or vandalistic form such as a throw-up,9 an acid etching (see Figure 1.5),10 or
a keyed insignia or in their most apparently amicable or decorative state
such as an elaborate mural, an abstract poster (see Figure 1.6), or a calligraphic
message on a wall all of these forms of cultural production were created within a
complex tradition of visual dexterity and physical skill, containing a quite defined
notion of aesthetic value and beauty at their core (even if a naturally subjective
notion of beauty of course). Qualities such as order or unity, proportion,
scale, contrast, balance and rhythm (Moughtin, Oc and Tiesdell 1999: 3)
elements understood as the key principles of decorative production were
fundamental to these particular designs, basic tenets which determined their
latter formation. Even if they were constituents that these practitioners sought
to establish only so as to later defile, if they were used to form a contrast to,
or a coherence with their architectural surround, the basic structure of all the
public works my informants produced could only become visible through
working with and through these underlying decorative principles, principles
which formed distinct styles irrelevant of their perceived aesthetic acceptability.
8
22
1.5Neko, Untitled
[Acid Etching in
process etchings
also visible in
surround], Madrid,
Spain, 2010
1.7Katsu, Untitled, New York, USA, 2011. Katsus figurative icon, produced in one pure movement,
functions both as an image of a skull whilst also containing the word tag hidden within it
Ornament
25
1.8Spok,
Untitled, Madrid,
Spain, 2007
Yet as earlier suggested, tagging can not only be seen to be ornamental through its
status as an adjunct and adornment of the letter form, it can so too be seen to be
acting adjunctively upon its architectural surround as much as the word, the what
of the image the written name guided through both the how of the letter as well
as the how of the city itself. It is thus doubly ornamental, embellishing typography
and architecture, supplementing the word and the wall. And even though often
deemed incomprehensible, as Grabar (1992) suggests almost all calligraphy is,
these written texts can thus come to elicit a very special response from viewers, an
26
Ornament
27
Only in very rare cases is Independent Public Art not ornamental: the German
duo Wermke and Leinkauf, for example, produce projects in which it is the feeling, rather
than the product of graffiti that is the main focus of the work. More akin to performance
art, there is often no artefactual residue and no ornament as such. However, one could
argue that this form of bodily performance itself is ornamental: as a performance
produced within and upon the body of the city (as Wermke and Leinkaufs urban
explorations can be seen to be), performances which would mean nothing without the
city, they could be seen as highly ephemeral ornamental acts in which the body itself
acts to ornament the city.
14
In fact Donald Brown includes the decoration of artefacts as one of his six
human universals alongside gossip, lying, making metaphors, binary distinctions, and
a fondness for sweets (Brett 2005: 6).
28
any kind of reductive analytic logic (Elsner 2006: 760), Ernst Gombrich going
as far as to warn of the ideological potential for determinism and collectivism
implicit in Kunstwollen (ibid.: 763),15 Riegls great accomplishment (as equally
acknowledged by Gombrich) was to give significance back to superficial16
ornament and decoration, to enable a bridging of the aesthetic, cultural, and
structural characteristics of any given object (not only high art but any form of
craft) from any time with the broader cultural aesthetics of its time (ibid.: 750).
Regardless of these critiques, Riegls famous claim that the urge to decorate []
is one of the most elementary of human drives (1992 [1893]: 31) was, and still is, a
widely accepted contention. Yet this acceptance did not stop it from also being a
highly contentious pronouncement within the modernist era, not because of any
questioning of the drive itself, but as to whether or not this compulsion could be
deemed culturally or aesthetically acceptable within the modern age, whether to
ornament was moral or criminal, purity or danger. Whilst John Ruskin famously
claimed that ornamentation was the principal part of architecture (1899 [1853]): 89),
a manifestation of what he termed divine laws (Ruskin 1868: 259), Adolf Loos, in his
infamous essay Ornament and Crime (2002 [1908]), argued conflictingly (or perhaps,
more correctly, correspondingly), that decoration was primitive, regressive, that the
evolution of culture was in fact synonymous with the removal of ornamentation from
objects of everyday use (ibid.: 30). For the followers of the South Kensington School,
then, ornament was seen to be a pivotal tool for reflecting the spirit of a culture
(Sloboda 2008: 230), yet for the adherents of the International Style, the inclination
toward decoration was, as Loos basely put it, excrement; he insisted (in what we
could in fact say was more ornate terms than others had used), that breaking oneself
of this habit was as necessary as toilet training (Buck-Morss 1995: 14). The eventual
victors in this modernist struggle over ornament are (ostensibly) clear to see, yet
this has not stopped its re-emergence and the attendant renewal of its vilification
within contemporary architectural practice. Thus while architects such as Jacques
Herzog and Pierre de Meuron have attempted a contemporary ornamental renewal,
forming a new style of sgraffito embellishment in direct critique of Loos unadorned
modernism (Hill 2006: 177), the art critic and historian Hal Foster has reengaged
with the Loosian perspective (2002), claiming that with the return to prominence
of design (a quality that is all image and no interiority [ibid.: 25]), the aesthetic
15
As Ja Elsner notes (2006), quoting Gombrich, in many ways the whole of Art
and Illusion is a sustained Popperian attack on all the implications of evolutionism,
historicism, collectivism, and determinism that Gombrich saw lurking in the mythmaking and mythological explanations, in which the Kunstwollen becomes a ghost in
the machine, driving the wheels of artistic developments according to inexorable laws
(ibid.: 762).
16
As Daniel Miller has illustrated (2005), the very conception of superficiality
showing only insincere or inconsequential realities is not a clear-cut one: as Strathern
(1979) argued for Mount Hagen [] and I have argued for Trinidad (1995) other people
simply dont see the world this way. They may regard the reality of the person as on
the surface where it can be seen and kept honest because it is where the person is
revealed. By contrast, our depth ontology is viewed as false, since for them it is obvious
that deep inside is the place of deception (ibid.: 32).
Ornament
29
and the utilitarian has become not only conflated (as within Art Nouveau), but
subsumed in the commercial, the semi-autonomy of architecture and art sacrificed
to its manipulations (ibid.: 1718).
Ornament can thus quite clearly be seen to present us with the archetypal
example of what Bruno Latour (2002) has termed an iconoclash, the endless cycle
of fascination, repulsion, destruction, atonement that images have so often come
to provoke, the state in which despite their common removal, they always return
again, no matter how strongly one wants to get rid of them (ibid.: 15). It can be
seen to stand directly at the point where one does not know, one hesitates, one is
troubled by an action for which there is no way to know, without further enquiry,
whether it is destructive or constructive (ibid.: 16), being both crime and custom,
deviance and divine. Yet how did this seemingly innocuous appendage, this entity
that cannot even be defined by a particular object, a particular era, or a particular
style, something that can be, in effect, practically anything (as long as it is both
adjunctive and decorative), come to achieve this entirely befuddled status? What
truly is it about ornament that has made it such a divisive concept?
1.9Image
destruction
or buffing in
Madrid, 2010
30
and sociological meaning, its latter-day usages were understood by many late
19th-century critics (William Goodyear17 here serving as a paradigmatic example)
as mere empty decorative effects, trappings tending to divorce the system of
ornament from the system of construction (Goodyear 1894: 68). Whereas the
Romans were understood to have built sensibly and artistically, without claiming
or showing the higher refinement of the Greeks (ibid.: 67), the engaged
columns, the simulated entablature and pediment used within the decadence
of Renaissance architecture, was considered to have been a mania, a tedious
repetition, a mechanical and life-less formula (ibid.: 68). Once the separation of
structural and ornamental systems had ensued, there was believed to have been
no bound to the license of arbitrary forms and lines, and what emerged was
thus a colder and more mechanical execution of decorative details (ibid.: 69).
The Renaissance reconstruction of classical Greek architecture and ornament
in particular was hence understood to have created a more formal and rigid
application of the Orders to wall surfaces, the outcome of which, Goodyear
conclusively declared, obliterated the general correspondence between form and
use, creating a more fretful, more anxious, less suggestive form of architecture
(ibid.: 69). Taking this argument even further, Hersey in fact suggested that in
many of the translations of architectural treatises undertaken in the early part
of the quattrocento Greek words were manhandled or else omitted entirely,
despite the fact, as he remarks, that the results were nonsense (Hersey 1988: 77).
He argued that even Alberti and Filarete paid scant attention to the original
terms used in Vitruviuss18 analysis of the origins of the orders and the meanings
of ornament within the Ancient Greek system, both of them further omitting his
(for Hersey vital) accounts of the legends of the Caryaen women and the Persian
captives (ibid.: 79), the meaning of which gave ornament its ability to mediate
and resolve both ancestral and contemporaneous societal discord (ibid.: 75).
In Herseys denunciatory summation, then, architects and artists continued
to exploit the ritual complexities of classicism even after all consciousness
of sacrificial meaning has ebbed away (ibid.: 2), the Greek revival aesthetic
becoming superficial ornamentation in the worst sense of the term: it was simply
form without function, ornamental orderliness without true order.
Yet it was not only neo-classical ornament which necessitated expulsion
during the modernist era however. For Loos and his many followers decorative
form in its entirety was ripe for extinction, representing backwardness or even a
degenerative tendency (Loos 2002 [1908]: 32), being for people and nations who
have not reached [our] level (ibid.: 35). Humanity was thus made to groan under
the slavery of ornament (ibid.: 30), the master of structure in constant threat
from its subaltern adjunct, made to groan under a form which did immense
17
Goodyear was entitled Americas first art historian in his 1926 entry in the
National Cyclopaedia of American Biography.
18
Hersey argues that Vitruvius, even though living during the Roman era, was
steeped in Greek culture: For though he is so often called Roman and linked to Augustus,
Vitruvius was trained in a Hellenistic tradition carried on in the name of Hermogenes.
Nor does he cease to remind us that his culture is Greek (Hersey 1988: 3).
Ornament
31
32
Tactile Adhesiveness
If, as now seems the case, the rejection of ornament solely leads to the production
of a new style of applied decoration (the iconoclash par excellence), what is it
that creates the anxiety that so palpably surrounds the ornamental discourse?
What is it that makes ornament so irrepressible, so tenacious even in the face
of its abhorrence?19 The answer, for Alfred Gell (1998) at least, centres on the
notion of artefactual agency. Whilst the most committed aesthetes are far from
keen on riotous decoration then, it can be understood to have survived and
prospered, even in the face of aesthetic condemnation from on high, because it
is socially efficacious (ibid.: 82, emphasis added). As a social technology, surface
decoration was believed to encourage and sustain the motivations necessitated
by social life through producing a vigorous attachment between persons and
things (ibid.: 74), an attachment bound through the social complexity of these
artefacts. Art objects, and likewise ornamental artefacts, were thus understood
to act as indexes of their producers agency, vehicles of their personhood
(ibid.: 81). They were seen by Gell to behave in many quite logical ways as
the person who formed them (as he explains through examples as diverse as
anti-personnel mines and the oeuvre of Marcel Duchamp), to be fragments of
primary intentional agents in their secondary artefactual form (ibid.: 21).
Just as Maussian gifts can be understood as physical traces of persons then,
as a method of binding persons through the transference of agentic objects
(a continually imbalanced transference which can never be completed), decorative
technologies were thought to act in an entirely analogous way, actors compelled
to load surfaces with decoration in order to draw persons into worldly projects, in
order to mediate social agency back and forth within the social field (ibid.: 812).
19
As Brett has argued (2005), the impulse to decorate and to find sensuous pleasure
in materials cannot be denied; IT WILL BREAK OUT, COME WHAT MAY (ibid.: 208).
Ornament
33
34
within its body (ibid.: 812), a quality not only meaning that it remains out of our
grasp, but that it forms an inexhaustible bond between index and recipient, object
and beholder. Just to look at decoration, as Wigley continues (2011), is thus to be
absorbed by it. Vision itself is swallowed by the sensuous surface (ibid.: 132). Merely
resting our eyes on the ornament is a profound danger (as Gell discusses at length in
terms of apotropaic art), us being caught within the material residue of performance,
in the literal animation of the image, captivated by its magical power.
This Gellian way of comprehending patterned form can, I believe, start to explain
the deeply phobic, deeply iconoclastic attitude so often displayed toward ornament,
the iconoclastic attitude revealed not only towards Art Nouveau and the decorative,
rather than fine arts, but that displayed toward the illegal ornaments here described.
It is their deeply agentic quality, this attachment in which persons or social agents
come to be substituted for by art objects (Gell 1998: 5), which comes to exacerbate
their fear, this individuation, the biographical relation created between decorated
index and recipient (ibid.: 80), which becomes the very cause of the contamination
they generate. The phalrophobie of the Modernists (as well as the anti-graffiti
authorities) is thus directly correlated to the stigma of personhood each sign elicits,
their status as in some way alive. As discussed at length in Schacter (2008), the way
both producers and consumers understand these images, the metaphors used as
well as the reactions prompted, consistently return to notions of agency, to the
living quality of these supposedly inanimate objects. And that the word tacky, as
Gell continues, was chosen by severe modernism to condemn the popular taste
for riotous ornament and other lapses of taste, can hence be seen to be rather
interesting in itself, tactile adhesiveness (as he narrates following Mary Douglas),
being something which attacks the body/world boundary (ibid.: 823), which
contains a viscosity, an adhesion, literally attaching the material world to ourselves.
Ornamentation, as Grabar has similarly argued (1992), cannot therefore simply be
understood as a category of forms or of techniques applied to some media but is
rather an unenunciated but almost necessary manner of compelling a relationship
between objects or works of art and viewers and users (ibid.: 230), a relationship
established through what he has elsewhere termed their demonic power. And it
is this agency which thus necessitates the fear that surrounds it, that necessitates
its removal; it is the wanton subjectivism (Foster 2002: 17) of these artefacts which
lays at the centre of this ornaphobia. Looss utopia (and, concomitantly, the utopia of
the anti-graffiti authorities) would have streets which would glisten like white walls
(ibid.: 77), streets devoid of all smearing, all tattooing, all sgraffito, all selfhood; theirs
would be a city devoid of the embedded social relations that ornament contains, a
state of total white-out (Wigley 1993).
The unease and angst that emerges at the sighting of Independent Public Art,
of commonly found examples of graffiti and street-art, can hence be understood to
emerge not simply through their contravention of legal codes; it can be understood
to emerge through their providing evidence of an embedded form of sociality,
expressing the evident personhood of their producers, eliciting an evidentially
animative quality. Through tattooing walls, as Jean Baudrillard remarked (1993
[1976]), graffiti free[s] them from architecture and turn[s] them once again into living,
social matter (ibid.: 36); it turns each tag, each poster, each mural, each marking in the
city into a material substantiation of an individual, a personhood revivifying a physical
Ornament
35
36
appear or, what amounts to the same, would not appear. It is not simply their
exteriority that constitutes them as parerga, but the internal structural link by
which they are inseparable from a lack within the ergon. And this lack makes
for the very unity of the ergon. Without it, the ergon would have no need of a
parergon. The lack of the ergon is the lack of a parergon, of drapery or columns
which nevertheless remain exterior to it (Derrida 1979: 24).
38
1.13Embellishing
the painted-out
remnants of his
old works after
they had been
erased by local
authorities, Homer
added what he
terms subcultural
nuances to these
ghostly, blockedout markings,
decorating the
scars that remained
from his earlier
efforts. Homer,
Post-Buffing, Kiev,
Ukraine, 2009
Like the parergon, the pharmakon contains within it the complicity of contrary
values (Derrida 1981 [1972]: 126), it elicits no pure, fixed identity; it is not merely
an ambiguous term, a term from which we could further appreciate the richness,
subtlety or scopeof Platos text (Norris 1987: 37), but a word that denotes ambivalence,
that defeats all attempts of placement and can be understood as an external threat
to its own internal purity. This is what gives ornament its friction, its danger. As with
frames and fetishes, tattoos and sgraffitos, ornament acts both as a part of the whole
and apart from it, blurring the boundary between interior and exterior, licit and illicit,
primary and secondary, inside and out. And whilst these objects are nominally seen
to merely delimit, they must in fact be grasped as highly porous surfaces, they are
borders rather than boundaries areas not acting as a limit but an edge, a site which
is a highly active zone of exchange (Sennett 2008).
The deep-seated iconoclash we find present within the discourse of ornament,
within the discourse of Independent Public Art, can thus be seen to emerge
through the curious status of ornament itself, through its ability to destabilize
the distinction between primary and secondary, ergon and parergon, through
its ability to unveil the deep lack of the concrete surface its lack of protection,
lack of colour, lack of personhood. The bare, incomplete wall can thus be seen to
call out for its ornamentation, the sparse structure begging to be etched upon,
revealing a cenophobia, a fear of the empty that only decoration will alleviate.
The essential addition, the ornament, the how of the image, thus not only
implies a constitutional deficiency within the ergon but at the same time in some
way satisfies that lack, re-establishing a harmony within the whole. Every act of
aesthetization, as Boris Groys has noted (2010), is thus always already a critique of
Ornament
39
the object of aesthetization simply because this act calls attention to the objects
need for a supplement in order to look better than it actually is (ibid.: 42). It not
only points toward the originary want that the supplement fills, but destabilizes
the very notion of primary and secondary, supplement and structure, ornament
and order. What can be understood to constitute graffiti then, as Roland Barthes
outlined (1991 [1979]), is in fact neither the inscription nor its message but the
wall, the background, the surface (the desktop); it is because the background exists
fully, as an object which has already lived, that such writing always comes to it as
an enigmatic surplus: what is in excess, supernumerary, out of place (ibid.: 167).
Paint not only lies on the surface of the wall, it embeds itself within it, it infuses into
its surface, the removal of this insurgent ornament hence necessitating a form of
destruction, the erasure of the addition always entailing the scarring of the surface.
In the same way, a vast number of the advertising hoardings (and other forms
of street furniture) which exist in our cities are illegally erected. The money spent on
tackling these illicit visual artefacts, as well as the penalties given to their constructers,
is however, significantly less than those meted out to individual contraveners of laws
over public space.
40
fames), only comes to further instantiate this argument. And whilst of course I would
not contest the fact that some amount of fear is generated by the basic illegality of
many of these ornaments (due, most likely, to their recurrent linkage to more violent
or invasive crimes by the now widely discredited Broken Windows theory of Wilson
and Kelling [1982]), this does not explain why other illicit aspects of our environment
do not generate the same level of fear and loathing. It is simply these ornaments
bicameral dimension, their adjunctive and decorative fundamentality, which I argue
is at the centre of the iconoclash they are surrounded by, the phalrophobie, the
ornaphobia, the anxiety they bring forth. It is the tension between the ornament and
the architecture which bestows Independent Public Art its vitality and its vilification,
its decorative, sticky agency which grants it the power to both bind and repulse.22
For all these reasons then, ornament, as Wigley has argued (1988), has always
been conceived of as potentially dangerous, potentially chaotic, something which
must be made servile to structure precisely because [it] lies in the dangerous realm
of representation and can mislead us, take us away from the natural presence of
harmony and order (ibid.: 52) the same harmony and order as we saw earlier with
Francis Terry of course. As architects have habitually attempted to tame ornament
then, to make it represent structure, to articulate structure, the core structure
in itself has for the most part, been protected from interrogation (ibid.: 52),
kept sacrosanct, inviolable. Yet as Wigley continues, if one can produce a form
that changes the condition of ornament, if ornament is articulated as a critique
of structure, then the status of your theoretical position changes as well; anyone
who launches the interrogation of structure, by definition, changes the status
of theory. If it is the case that the whole discipline is set up to protect this view
of the object, to enable the whole of our culture to maintain its traditional
ways of operating, to maintain its security, then any architectural theory that
tampers with that view is not just tampering with descriptions of architecture; it
is also tampering with the way we construct ideas. So there is a kind of circular
argument here: if we could successfully change the way we conceive of the object,
change the status of the object, then we will have changed the status of theory.
Theory is constructed on the basis of a certain view of the object (ibid.: 52).
As I hope now to advance, it is this particular modality of ornament, a form in critique of its
very own structure, a form that aims to question that which it is positioned within, that
acts as the archetype for the practices of Independent Public Art I seek to explore here.23
22
On the occasions that Independent Public Art does become venerated on a more
popular level, however, this often has much to do with perceptions of wider market value.
23
Of course, many architects have attempted to disrupt the structure/ornament
dynamic. Distinguishing between decoration and ornament, Herzog and de Meuron, as
mentioned above, have attempted to produce a style of ornament which is not simply
something additional, but something which is integral to form. As Herzog has suggested
(2006), When ornament and structure become a single thing, strangely enough the result
is a new feeling of freedom. Suddenly, you no longer need to explain or apologise for
this or that decorative detail: it is a structure, a space. In actual fact, I am not particularly
interested in either structure or ornament or space as such. Things start to get interesting
when you bring all these elements together in a single thing, and if you can experience it,
Ornament
41
42
44
46
1.17San, Untitled
[detail], Besanon,
France, 2011
Yet, furthermore, in Sans scratching we can also detect the major/minor, master/
slave positionality so inherent to ornamental form its state within the very
structure while being innately disconnected from it, its concurrent attachment and
detachment from the whole, wedded yet divorced, supplement and surplus clearly
functioning here to disturb the probity, the very cohesive state of the supposedly
primary body. Sans work is thus both on the door and yet it is not the door, it is on
the surface yet cannot be separated from the surface itself. And as the archetypal
example of a foreign body that already inhabits the interior and cannot be expelled
without destroying its host (Wigley 1987: 160), it again exposes the incompleteness
of the intact state, the parergon working alongside its ergon without being a part
of it and yet without being absolutely extrinsic to it (Derrida 1987: 55). Our artefact
here can hence unveil the deep lack of the its surface (its lack of protection, lack of
pattern, lack of personhood), its engrained status thus functioning contrarily to
the colonnades that Kant saw as insuring the integrity and purity of the parerga to
succeed only in disrupting this dynamic. The bare surface, the untouched door, can
thus be understood to call out for its ornamentation, a horror vacui, or, as Gombrich
perspicuously notes (1984), an amor infiniti (ibid.: 80), that only ornamentation will
relieve. This insurgent form of ornamentation, like Independent Public Art as a whole,
can thus be seen as the archetypal example of a parergon in critique of its ergon, a
decorative pollution, a Loosian crime of style. It can perfectly illustrate the force of
Ornament
47
I need to do it, I have to do it, I cant live without it! These were some of the
most common responses to the habitual question, so why do you paint? It seemed to
be a flawless example of Riegls Kunstwollen, a perfect example of elementary urge to
decorate (Riegl 1992: 31).
26
G. Thomas Goodnight for example (1997), argues that many attempted
conceptualizations of action in the public sphere are habitually bedevilled by a
withdrawal into overly reductive oppositions (such as I have used here perhaps),
oppositions eluding the real complexity of the practices themselves: To read publics,
not in the mix, match, and multiplicity of symbolic activities, but through the framefrozen binaries of con(dis)sensus is likely to diminish learning from rhetorical models
by overdetermining presumption and by masking risks encountered in enactments of
public discourses, discussions, and performances (ibid.: 220). Whilst I hope, of course,
to stress the palpable complexity of both discourses being discussed, I will still be
persisting simply due to the ethnographic reality encountered with this broadly
dichotomous thesis.
27
As is examined on pp. 1268, this division between harmony and dissonance
can be seen to relate to various institutional aesthetic discourses which follow similar
conceptual lines, artistic gestures which seek either to reject or to embrace an engaged
modality.
28
A technique of postering which uses a liquid adhesive made from flour and
water.
48
more usually (and again, often incorrectly) defined as graffiti practices aesthetic
practices likewise occurring illegally in the street but here subsuming techniques such
as tagging, throw-ups, and etching29 will by and large reside within the assemblage
of Agonistic Ornamentation, as will, of course, the attendant images that these
practices necessarily generate: here we will find a desire for a very partial rather than
wholesale inclusion in the public sphere, a conceptual and formal obfuscation which
if not simply dissensual, illustrates a combative modality of communication, and a
style which often (but again not always) works through textual rather than figural
form. Formally elucidated through specific examples (see pp. 7886, 11526), these
two ornamental approaches will be conceptually illuminated through the political
theories of Deliberative Democracy and Agonistic Pluralism (in particular through the
work of their theoretical forefathers Jrgen Habermas and Jean-Franois Lyotard),
theories which come to clarify these aesthetic discourses through their somewhat
surprizing congruence with my informants quotidian cultural production.30
What must be made clear, however, is that neither of the modalities being
delineated is able to be disassociated from its original sites of application, its prime
mediumistic locale from the public space of the city where it appears. As forms
of ornamentation, once removed from their surround, from their carrier, these
artefacts naturally go through a radical transformation, and must be assessed
through a new set of criteria (a set of criteria unrelated to the narrative of this story).
Of course this does not mean that the practitioners of these ornamental forms
cannot produce legitimate work (as seen by their peers that is) within a gallery
or institutional setting. It simply means that when produced within a different
surround, a different medium, the terms of discourse themselves must be similarly
reworked, it must be governed by an entirely different set of aesthetic, ethical,
political principles. The final production can hence be considered as exciting,
interesting, or enveloping as anything produced within its original setting (within
the medium of the public sphere), but will be a different form of cultural production
in toto.31 The white cube may hence be understood as ornament (a decoration, a la
Loos, without decoration), but will be seen to preclude the production of ornament.
29
The use of either acid solutions to indelibly imprint ones tag, normally onto
glass, or a key or knife to cut the same into other surfaces.
30
I must state here that the relationship between these political and aesthetic
discourses was not one I went to the field with. Far from it in fact. Whilst I understood
that there were two broadly different forms of cultural production occurring, I had no
previous schooling in the theories of democracy which they are here linked to. The
connection to these Habermasian and Lyotardian theories became apparent only after
the continual evocation of both democratic and communicative ideals by my informants,
their evocation of themes related to consensual and agonistic perspectives. Whilst in
Part I I will be examining what are broadly visual forms of cultural production through
theories which emerge from the realm of language then, this is supported through my
informants concentration on notions of transmission, through the meanings that my
informants themselves attached to their works.
31
Although, Ruskin (1859) would probably disagree: [P]ortable art, he argued, art
independent of all place was for the most part ignoble art. Your little Dutch landscape,
which you put over your sideboard to-day, and between the windows to-morrow, is
Ornament
49
a far more contemptible piece of work than the extents of field and forest with which
Benozzo [in producing his famous frescoes] has made green and beautiful the once
melancholy arcade of the Campo Santo at Pisa (ibid.: 80).
50
cases of street-art that reside more easily within their Agonistic counterpart.32 It is
hence both the overburdening and underwhelming form of signification prevalent
within the initiatory taxonomies that I want to dispose of; an often deeply-misplaced
meaning that precludes any multi-layered understanding of these particular
discourses that leaves the original terms inadequately placed to delineate their
true distinctions.33 The term Consensual Ornamentation thus aims to describe many
of the actions of (what might often be termed) street-art, without reducing it to
the common inferences that it now typically elicits, the themes of (purportedly,
and most probably fleetingly) acceptable art, of gentrification and institutionality
that it commonly signifies. Likewise, the term Agonistic Ornamentation aims to
depict many of practices of (what might often be called) graffiti, without reducing
it to the frequent presumptions that it typically adduces, without diminishing it
to the themes of vandalism, masculinity and gangs that it habitually connotes
suppositions that, for both of the categories, simply lessen our ability to interrogate
them more astutely.
Moreover, and as has so far been elided, all the above mentioned issues fail to
mention the very basic fact that my informants themselves shunned their branding
as either graffiti-writers or street-artists (even the term artist being for many of them
difficult to accept), labels that they saw as depreciating the divergent and often very
contradictory forms of cultural production that they generated, that simply turned
them into one-dimensional artistic caricatures rather than embodied, complex
actors.34 Whats more, they felt that when the terms were used, they were often
abused by many of their contemporaries, artists (or, more often, the institutions or
32
Stephen Powers, perhaps more commonly known as ESPO for example, who is
without doubt a classic New York style graffiti writer (see his book The Art of Getting Over,
[Powers 1999]), currently produces works that function within the realm of what I term
Consensual Ornamentation outward looking, legible, community-embracing visual
designs. Although he may or may not define this work purely as graffiti (he has been
known to call it emotional advertising), Powers is a fierce and notable critic of street-art
and would see graffiti as a directly hereditary movement to his current practice. Thus,
this could be a purported instance of the Agonistic working within the realms of the
Consensual. Likewise, La Mano, an artist from Barcelona, whose eponymous ideogram
of a raised fist could put him firmly in the realms of street-art (many seeing the original
disjuncture between graffiti and street-art emerging from the movement from letterbased to image-based tags), could be quite easily understood to work within the realm
of the Agonistic. As a defiant, overtly seditious image, one locating itself within all the
traditional spaces of graffiti production (including the all-important trains), his work
could be seen to move effortlessly between these two visual spheres of the Consensual
and Agonistic (see p. 98 for an example of his work).
33
As James Elkins has argued in terms of the concept of the gaze (2007), the
original expressions are both overdetermined (burdened by contradictory theories)
and radically underdetermined (worn too thin to have much purchase on individual
artworks), and thus necessitate removal.
34
Thus, as Louis said to me before I finally returned to London, just dont talk
about street-art! Please! Its not about that. Its about everything that we do. Nano, in a
similar vein, told me of course, graffiti is massively important to me, to all of us. I know
its history, its birth, Ive done it and lived it and I do share many of the points of view that
Ornament
51
galleries that spoke for them) inventing a famed history of graffiti by the practitioner
when in reality they had only ever painted a single tag, inventing a fertile narrative
of cultural production on the street when in fact they simply craved a route into the
gallery or contemporary art world as (and again, quite antithetically) a street-artist.
This was considered to be a fraudulent but all-too-common process of induction
that my informants wanted no part of.35 None of them felt that their actions could
comfortably subsist within these extant terminologies; they felt trapped within the
idioms, at once too broad and too narrow, too spacious yet specious.36
By using the terms Consensual and Agonistic Ornamentation, then, the spatial
practices my informants undertook will be described through their method, their
medium of production and intrinsic technique adjunctive/decorative and thus
ornamental as well as the politico-aesthetic foundations that maintain their
inherent distinctions as I will now go on to delineate, a practice of agonism versus
a practice of consensuality. It is these forms tangible, material and ornamental
values (their working as decorative supports to a primary structure) as well as their
intangible, immaterial and conceptual values (their working as theoretical supports
to an ontological structure) that I want to establish, the interaction between form,
intention, and practice (Holston 2006: 35), the complex interweaving of meaning
and performance. First following the native exegesis the interpretations and
significance my informants themselves attribute to the artworks they produce
it is hence the communicative intent of these aesthetic paradigms that will now
be explored, two modalities of public, insurgent ornamentation which, as we
will now come to see, come to define a very particular way of understanding the
contemporary city.
go with it. But Im not going to play the part of a real writer because thats not the only
thing Ive lived. Its part of me, but its not possible for it to be everything.
35
It was not that commercial success was looked down upon by my informants,
nor was gallery or institutional work in itself. This was understood as part of an artistic
career, just something to be managed correctly if one wanted to keep on steady
ethical grounds. It was simply the bogus history used to convey some sort of renegade
artistic past that was disparaged and dismissed. Tono, for example, now called himself
a public-artist to disassociate himself with the hoards of non-street street-artists
who had emerged into the public eye; Maybe I should start calling myself a bakerartist he once joked, I worked in a bakery for like two weeks when I was 16, so yeah,
that must make me a baker-artist!. Yes, it could be argued that there was a degree of
competitiveness over the notions of authenticity that emerged here. But more than
this, there was a simple frustration over the utilization of the street under false pretence,
for instrumental, rather than inspirational purposes.
36
Spok might disagree with me here. He would, first and foremost, describe
himself as a graffiti-writer. But there were other aspects to his creative output that he
likewise embraced, and he readily saw the contradictions both in his own practice as
well as those exposed by friends trying to keep it real. Graffiti was a core part of his
life, but only he understood the term itself, and it was one working in almost direct
opposition to its popular understanding.
2
Consensual Ornamentation
Consensual Ornamentation
55
2.3Eltono,
Untitled, Utrecht,
Netherlands, 2013
56
Consensual Ornamentation
57
However, Habermass analysis is set out (as the title would have it) on the
attendant transformation of the state of the public sphere, the weakening of this
previously described harmonious (and perhaps utopian) state of affairs, as well
as, latterly, discussing the potential for its contemporary reformation. Habermas
thus goes on to describe the so-called refeudalization of the public sphere by
the end of the 19th century (ibid.: 54), a state through which the titans of industry
and other domineering corporations came to control and manipulate the media
and state (Kellner 2000: 264), and the state itself (through the burgeoning
welfare system and the massive increase of bureaucratization) began to play
an increasingly important (and for Habermas, increasingly negative) role within
civil society in general. The overbearing role of state and corporate action thus
diminished the shared, involved nature of participatory citizenship. It meant that
the bourgeois public came to act as consumers rather than citizens, dedicating
themselves more to passive consumption and private concerns than to issues of
the common good and democratic participation (ibid.: 265). Communal opinion,
rather than being rationally debated and argued then, ended up being managed
and controlled by political, economic, and media elites, hegemonic forces who
directed opinion as part of systems management and social control (ibid.: 265).
The previously venerated public sphere thus became a field for the competition
of interests, competitions which assume the form of violent conflict (Habermas
1974 [1964]: 54), and the decrees and regulations that previously came about
through rational public discussion, could now, with the collapse of the public
sphere, scarcely still be understood as arising from the consensus of private
individuals engaged in public discussion (ibid.: 54).
The original emancipatory conception of the public sphere that Habermas
described thus mutated into its almost direct antithesis, a state within which
mass media distorted the previously liberating media forces, where they had
become subject to political dominance and influence, where it became a site
for mere commerce, consumption and commercialization, rather than a channel
for rational and reasoned discussion of matters of true import. The communal
opinions generated by the public sphere thus decomposed into the informal
opinions of private citizens without a public, being now solely generated
through formal opinions of publicistically effective institutions (Habermas 1991:
247). The very thing that initially enabled the development of a cohesive public
sphere, the expansion of free, open, mass communication, came to be that which
in fact brought about its ensuing disablement; the bourgeois public became
compliant and docile consumers of messages, inert spectators of a partisan
media discourse, rather than recalcitrant, active participants in an independent,
impartial public arena. The very concept of the public sphere, as Habermas
decisively concludes (1974 [1964]), a concept which calls for a rationalization of
power through the medium of public discussion among private individuals, came
to be in peril of complete disintegration due to the structural transformation of
the public sphere itself (ibid.: 55). Only through a complete reconfiguration could
its affirmative values be renewed, only through what Habermas describes as
58
2.4Unknown
Artist, Mi Vida
Es Como La
Tuya, Madrid,
Spain, 2007
a rational reorganization of social and political power under the mutual control
of rival organizations committed to the public sphere in their internal structure as
well as in their relations with the state and each other (ibid.: 55), could the public
sphere return to a state of serving its populace, from the prevailing situation of
its populace simply serving it.
Forced to Participate
Habermass later work, The Theory of Communicative Action (1987a, 1987b), sought
to develop a model moving away from his previous focus on negative dialectics1
in a linguistic turn2 towards language and communication that attempted both
to critique the destructive hegemonic structures he saw intensifying through the
public spheres continuing entropy and to encourage a new form of social action that
Consensual Ornamentation
59
enabled a recuperation from this collapse. The theory, based upon the key notion
of communicative rationality, and much in debt to J.L. Austins work on speechacts, examined a form of interaction that was oriented to achieving, sustaining and
renewing consensus, a consensus that rested upon the intersubjective recognition
of criticizable validity claims (Habermas 1987a: 137). It meant to establish clear
grounds from which to critique hegemonic practices (both state and mercantile)
that gained authority solely by inhibiting any educated, informed opinion, that
gained authority by impeding authentic public participation. What Habermas
thus suggested was that only genuine communicative action contained the
intrinsic rationality that could, returning to the words of Douglas Kellner (2000),
generate norms to criticize distortions of communication in processes of societal
domination and manipulation, and, in this way, could then cultivate a process of
rational discursive will-formation (ibid.: 271). Through the use of language oriented
towards two key concerns understanding and consensus participants would
be able to produce validity claims (propositional truth, normative rightness, and
subjective truthfulness), which could then be embodied in both linguistic and
non-linguistic symbolic expressions (Habermas 1987a: 75). These three validity
aspects normative rightness, the normative suitability of any claim within the
shared social world (adjudged through what was considered to be morally correct
behaviour); subjective truthfulness, assessed its sincerity within the internal,
subjective world (thus perceived valid if honest); and propositional truth, considered
the assumed existential presuppositions of any assertion within the sphere of the
external, objective world (that is, whether or not something in fact corresponded to
reality)3 were seen to be implicit characteristics of any speech-act carried out in
an attitude oriented to understanding (ibid.: 306). Yet what was key for Habermas
was that these validity claims were orientated towards understanding, that they
implicitly renounced any strategic, or perlocutionary communication where
effects were produced external to the meaning of what is said (ibid.: 291) and
instead insisted on the sole pursuit of illocutionary aims (ibid.: 295), whereby
effects are produced from the very meaning of what is said in the manifest content
of the speech act (ibid.: 290). Illocutionary force was thus understood to involve
the establishment of a relationship between speaker and listener through rational
speech; perlocutionary force, on the other hand, sought simply to bring about
a desired end through which speakers might strategically manipulate listeners
into agreement through the use of variegated, emotional, rhetorical forms of
speech4 (Drexler and Hames-Garcia 2004: 56). Strategic action, parasitically using
3
Maeve Cooke (1997) translates these three realms into three statements: the
social, a claim to normative rightness, Abortion is morally wrong; the subjective, a
claim to truthfulness, I have a headache; and the objective, a claim to propositional
truth It is raining outside (ibid.: 11).
4
While Habermas agrees with Searle (1974) that perlocutionary acts may
function through illocutionary ones, that by arguing I may persuade or convince
someone, by warning him I may scare or alarm him (ibid.: 25), he disagrees on the
level of intentionality linked to this. As he suggested (2000): Someone who makes a
bet, appoints an officer as supreme commander, gives a command, admonishes or
60
illocutionary force to proceed, saying one thing but indirectly (or duplicitously)
meaning something else, was hence recognized to be not only coercive, but also
wholly external to the validity claims raised by an utterance, and, therefore, not
subject to contest and challenge in discourse (Markell 1997: 390).
What was thus vital for Habermas was that the orientation to agreement must
arise from a specifically independent, uninhibited state, a site from where social
actors are free to contest and challenge any truth claims. The very possibility of
consensus hence presupposed that those acting communicatively are capable
of mutual criticism (Habermas 1987a: 119), that every communicative act, while
aiming for understanding and agreement, became a discursive offer that could
lead to resultant consent or dissent, that through the act we find ourselves, whether
agreeing or not, forced to participate (ibid.: 119). Consequently, as Markell argues
(1997), to be oriented toward agreement an actor need not have agreement as
the goal of his or her action or speech, nor must the action or speech be likely
to produce agreement (ibid.: 391); the search for understanding simply entailed
a foreswearing of the mechanisms of coercion and influence a foreswearing of
perlocution [] and a corresponding commitment to provide reasons for ones
claims if they are challenged (ibid.: 391). Following John R. Searle (1969), perhaps
Austins most famous devotee, illocutionary acts were thus understood as acts
completed when we succeed in doing what we are trying to do by getting our
audience to recognize what we are trying to do (ibid.: 47, emphasis added). The
latter effect on the hearer was not meant to be a belief or a response, but simply
that that the hearer understand the utterance of the speaker (ibid.: 47). Within
this reading, then, the notion of consensus is based solely upon an affirmative
attitude anticipating a final accord, one which has the procedural potentiality to
achieve this ultimate understanding, but does not automatically necessitate the
reaching of this conclusionary state. Illocutionary practices were a vital element of
Habermass theoretical reasoning, the key, in fact, to communicative action itself;
however, a final agreement from the practices initiated was not the requisite climax
of the communicative process.5
warns, makes a prediction, tells a story, makes a confession, reveals something, and so
forth is acting communicatively and cannot, at the same level of interaction, produce
perlocutionary effects at all. A speaker can pursue perlocutionary aims only when he
deceives his counterpart concerning the fact that he is acting strategically when
for example, he gives the command to attack in order to get his troops to rush into
a trap, or when he proposes a bet of $3,000 in order to embarrass someone, or when
he tells a story late in the evening in order to delay a guests departure, and so on. It is
certainly true that in communicative action unintended consequences may occur at
any time but as soon as there is a danger that these will be attributed to the speaker
as intended effects, the latter finds it necessary to offer explanations and denials, and
if need be, apologies, in order to dispel the false impression that these side effects are
perlocutionary effects (ibid.: 128).
5
I do of course realize that the term illocutionary as used here may seem to have
the almost exactly contrary meaning to that ascribed by Maurice Bloch (1975). This
issue, however, will be dealt with further below (on p. 203); suffice it to say that for now
we will put Blochs claims out of mind.
Consensual Ornamentation
61
2.5 and 2.6 An example of the propositional rather than perlocutionary intentions of
Consensual Ornamentation. Remed, There Is Something Else, London, England, 2010
Consensual Ornamentation
63
Crafting an open arena for rational, cogent, public argumentation and debate,
the producers of Consensual Ornamentation can thus be seen to be re-working
the original conception of the public sphere in what is now an illicit manner, an
illicitness transgressing commercial law and private property but not societal
wellbeing, an illicitness that aims to serve the public, not despoil it. Like the practice
of reasoned discourse that founded it, then, this mode of public ornamentation
will be grasped as a practice based upon the intentions of private individuals to
rally together, shaping communal opinion within an open, public environment. It
is an act signifying the presence of a community of discussants, a community of
actors sharing and conversing within the public sphere of the city. And, working
as an ensemble, synergically, coming together as a stylistic family, all of these
public accomplishments are aimed at addressing communal opinion collectively,
attempting to counter the beliefs, judgements and outlooks of hegemonic
institutions by proposing an alternative, by displaying a diversity, by setting out
a statement of intent in direct contrast to the manipulative, instrumental effects
of the existent visual culture in the city. Working in direct contrast to the current
media discourse, it is thus the simple offer of a proposition rather than mendacious
persuasion which is desired by my informants, a proposition intent on receipt,
intent on attention not acceptance, on recognition over submission.
Secondarily, I want to propose Consensual Ornamentation as a discourse
working towards the realization of consensus through communicative rationality,
a rationality aimed, at its very core, at reaching a dynamic plane of understanding
with its public audience, at reaching a form of understanding with the entire city
at large. It is thus a practice oriented toward the construction of a direct social
relationship, constructed with an overt desire to create a purposeful rapport with
its requisite viewer that I believe is taking place here. And I will hence be arguing
that the ornamental productions of my informants can be conceived as fully
Habermasian illocutionary utterances, as acts not only where the speaker in saying
something also does something, but where they act as a warranty of commitment,
a warranty that can provide reasons in support of the validity of the claims, as
Maeve Cooke explains (2000: 8). They are utterances free from any form of strategic
manipulation, utterances that form a state of consensuality that does not confine
plurality, does not limit any conception of difference, but attempts to pull people
together rather than draw them apart. This approach aligned toward achieving,
sustaining and renewing consensus (Habermas 1987a: 17) can be demonstrated
not only through Consensual Ornamentations desire for decipherable, visually
articulate images the aesthetic forms, as we will discuss further below, working
through either simplicity or legibility, being shaped directly so as to be part of a
wider social discourse, to be understood by as wide a sphere as possible but
also through its medium in the most open of museums, in the city itself, which,
following Mieke Bal (who we will hear more from below), I will suggest is the
archetypal space of expository, discursive acts. Due to this desire for connection,
then, this desire for an effusive union with their public counterpart, an authentic
form of understanding can be seen to be formed through the simple enunciation
of a statement of intent. And the harmony desired by Consensual Ornamentation is
64
thus not attempting to compel or force agreement, it is not consensus in its liberaldemocratic conception, a deadening middle-ground where there is nothing but
a notional consensus, but a form resting upon the intersubjective recognition of
criticizable validity claims (Habermas 1987a: 137). It was a discourse taking place
within conditions of free determination; autonomy from any internal or external
limitations.
Consensual Ornamentation
65
2.73TTMan, Ceci
est mon cuerpo,
Palma, Spain, 2009
66
2.8Eltono and
Nuria, Untitled
[Signboard
project], London,
England, 2008.
Not only acting
as a performative
signature, the
signboards
which Eltono and
Nuria installed in
London, Madrid
and Stockholm,
were later gifted to
whomever found
them, an explicitly
anti-commercial
tactic once more
linking them
to Habermass
common concern
Consensual Ornamentation
67
68
2.9El Mac, El
Corazn de un
Sueo, Havana,
Cuba, 2012
The issues these practitioners interrogate thus become general not merely
in their significance, but also in their accessibility, becoming general because
everyone is able to participate (Habermas 1991: 37), because the simple
witnessing of these images turns their public into the readers, listeners, and
spectators the inclusive public needs. My informants explicit desire was simply to
create a discourse with their recipients, to provoke a relationship between viewer
and image, an aspiration for comprehensibility from people who may have no
previous knowledge of any formal, artistic discourse within which the work may
be set within. This was a search for communion, for consensus, for understanding
and, opposed to the profound (and intentional) indecipherability of the soon to
be discussed Agonistic Ornamentation, its profound (and intentional) isolation
into a clique, the work produced within its Consensual counterpart was formed
with lucidity, physical accessibility, and inclusivity at its heart.8
Through following these three institutional requirements, Consensual
Ornamentation can hence be seen to be reintegrating the classical desires of the
public sphere within the contemporary city, a state in which only in the light of the
public sphere did that which existed become revealed, where only in the light of
the public sphere did everything become visible to all (ibid.: 4). It is therefore fully
8
If we place Agonistic Ornamentation within these three institutional requirements,
the divergences to Consensual Ornamentation become very clear. Within the Agonistic
partner then, common humanity is disregarded in favour of an intentionally constrained
social discourse, common concern (whilst met in questioning previously disregarded
issues) is not addressed in terms of the wider public as a whole, and an inclusive public
revoked, as mentioned, in favour of the clique itself. This is not to in any way disparage
the contribution of Agonistic Ornamentation, merely to note its failure to comply with
Habermass standards for an open public sphere.
Consensual Ornamentation
69
coherent with the key technical prerequisites of a rational civic arena; a space where
meaningful democratic practice is enacted through the medium of open discursive,
public interaction; a practice shaped towards the establishment of a shared public
bond; an action in which each person must be accountable for their own beliefs.
Through its common humanity (its total disregard for social status), through its
common concern (its problematization of unquestioned issues), through its inclusive
public (its refusal of the clique), Consensual Ornamentation embraces the commons,
the quotidian, the universal, embracing not only self-expression, but an arena in
which one can freely present their ideas and opinions. And whilst it may be illegal,
it can still be understood to function as an immanent critique, one which avoids
fetishizing existing rules and at the same time does not dismiss the essence of these
rules (Thomassen 2010: 55). Whilst it may work through a material violence, this is
a demonstrative violence (one that brings attention to arguments) rather than a
base violence and vandalism in the traditional sense of the terms (ibid.: 55). Like
the newly surfacing spatial constructions and infrastructural habitat that enabled
the evolution of the bourgeois public sphere then, the mass availability of the
spraycan can be understood to have functioned like the incipient printing presses
of the 18th century (or the developing availability of tea, coffee and chocolate), the
very walls of the city acting like the clubs or coffee houses where people openly
exchanged thoughts and ideas, facilitating a body of practices intent on resisting
public authority, resisting the rising passivity engendered through the latter
transformation of the public sphere. Consensual Ornamentation is thus here seen
to both undercut the principle on which existing rule [is] based (Habermas 1991:
28) using an adapted spatial medium with which to promote ideals contrary to the
instrumental rationality of the city and the state and to use the very principle of
publicity against the established authorities (ibid.: 56) utilizing an unconventional,
illegal medium to promote issues contrary to the prevalent systemic values. It will
hence be understood as a domain battling against the shaping, constructing, and
limiting [of] public discourse to those themes validated and approved by media
corporations (Kellner 2000: 265), a domain advancing an alternative mode of
discourse not based on strategic factionalism or base economic gain. And acting
as a rival organization (Habermas 1974 [1964]: 55) as an organization committed
unhampered communication and public rationalcritical debate (Habermas 1991:
209) we thus find the practitioners of Consensual Ornamentation to be invested
totally in the survival of the public sphere, totally dedicated toward the practice of
public discussion amongst private individuals (Habermas 1974 [1964]: 55). We find
them totally dedicated toward rational public discussion within the modern polis.
70
Action, only one was thought to be strictly relevant to aesthetic critique. Whilst
theoretical discourses were thought to engage propositional truth, practical
discourses normative rightness, aesthetic criticisms were argued to be the sole
arena for subjective truthfulness (ibid.: 23). It was thus understood to be only
through formal language, through literal speech-acts, that subjects could
ever come to a truly mutual understanding, non-linguistic forms having an
orientation towards understanding only if the interactions produced could be
fully mediated via linguistic channels. The aesthetic was understood to be solely
concerned with the authenticity of feeling produced through an engagement
with an object, sincerity as realized within the internal, subjective world, and thus
unsympathetic to its effect upon either normative rightness or existential truth (its
moral correctness or faithfulness to reality). Whilst Habermas did suggest that
aesthetic productions could at some points be seen to supplement speech-acts,
poetic, fictive, and other aesthetic languages were still understood to be on the
whole parasitic on communicative action, uprooting them from their normative
use (Ingram 1991: 80).9
However, I will argue that we can in fact find a way out of this ostensible bind
by analysing these particular ornamental works not as indirect adaptations of
speech-acts but directly analogous to them, not merely supplementing speechacts but, through acting as forms of public exposure, functioning as speech
acts in themselves. Through this transference aesthetic products can then be
understood, following the work of Mieke Bal (1999), to articulate an argument
with all the communicative possibilities that language offers (ibid.: 7), to
articulate an argument to its fullest, communicatively rational extent. Tracing
back the origin of the Greek verb apo-deik-numai, Bal, translating the term as
publicly demonstrating, uses the (providential) example of a graffito to explore
a form of visuality which acts as its archetypal form, a form which is at the same
time an exposition, expos and exposure (ibid.: 4):
[T]here, on a city wall, for all members of our present, multicultural society to see,
to see and hence to read, to read the handwriting on the wall. It is an exhibit; it
is on show; and it shows itself, shows its hand, its presence. And in its capacity as
visible exhibit, it exposes itself and what it has to say (ibid.: 4).
2.10 Filippo Minelli, Could you please suggest to me any revolutionary act?,
Tudela de Navarra, Spain, 2011
72
2.11Escif, Art
Vs Capitalism,
Grottaglie,
Italy, 2011
Consensual Ornamentation
73
Consensual Ornamentation
75
The frequently prolonged existence of this form of work, then, the common
hesitancy for the removal of these ornamental artefacts from the city especially
when placed in a comparative temporal framework to Agonistic Ornamentation
can thus be seen to allude to its hazily accepted state, its contextual rightness, this
state where the iconoclasts cannot be sure, where one hesitates (Latour 2002: 16); it
points towards the fact that much of the work does not seek to aggressively confront
its medium, does not mean to violently assail its viewer, but simply intends to initiate
a conversation within what can be deemed as an aesthetically, conversationally
acceptable modality. Moreover, each act, each ornament can be seen to attempt
to initiate a direct interpersonal relationship with their viewer, its decorative status
attempting to snare its associate viewer, being explicitly produced to elicit a response.
This was the main reason for working in the public sphere, to create a connection to
people who they may otherwise never encounter, to create an alliance with those
whom they lived amongst. The practitioners of Consensual Ornamentation thus
emphatically wanted their work to be deemed acceptable. They wanted to reach out
to the public with their images; they believed their work was more appropriate, more
social, than the vast majority of visual culture that lay within the street: their work was
meant to be there. And that is exactly why 3TTMan was so happy to argue with the
police when they tried to prevent him working (as they often did, 3TTMan choosing,
for the most part, to work openly during the day exactly because he believed what
he did was right, licit or not), that is why he was so eager to refute their (fetishistic)
laws; the exact point of his practice was to create a relationship with his viewers, to
ameliorate the environment, to be in place. His work, as with the other producers
of Consensual Ornamentation, was thus the very definition of normative rightness,
the production of an act deemed appropriate within our shared social world, the
production of a contextually acceptable act.
The second claim, subjective truthfulness, has its specific aesthetic validity
confirmed in Habermass original thesis referring to the authenticity of feeling
or desire, to the inner experience one often encounters in art a conception of
sincerity covering expressive self-presentations in which acceptability depends on
the unspoken assurance that the speaker can sustain any validity claim (Habermas
1987a: 17). It aims, therefore, to prove the authenticity of the expression pronounced
by the claimant, defending it in reference to their beliefs, intentions, feelings [and]
desires (ibid.: 307); to provide an intersubjective commonality through a mutual
trust in subjective sincerity (ibid.: 308), a simple belief that what is said is honest,
open and candid. In terms of Consensual Ornamentation, I would argue that this
validity claim is straightforwardly obtained through the basic and inherent danger
contained within its productive process the danger of both incarceration and
pecuniary penalty through police action, the danger of physical harm emerging
through its often hazardous means of construction risks directly alluding to the
commitment needed just to embark on the communicative process. Sincerity
is thus proven through this commitment, a commitment which cannot be ironic
or feigned, a commitment which underscores the seriousness and earnestness of
the producer.12 Moreover, the further fact of working free-of-charge, of seeking no
12
This notion of risk and commitment will be discussed in depth through Leo
Howes work, pp. 192203.
76
financial benefit for the hours (weeks, years) spent working in the city, can be seen
to reiterate this basic sincerity: why would one go to so much effort if not being
truthful? Why would one bother if disingenuous? The long-term strategic goals
suggested by some as the cost-benefit for the loss of any immediate reimbursement
(whether of a strictly economic or else cultural capital), simply does not corroborate
with the base need to paint in the streets, the base need to be productive in public
space that my informants displayed on a daily basis. The failure of these actors to
rigorously document their work (hence my original use-value as a photographic
participant observer), or to use their public engagement as a simple marketing tool
(inscribing their work with a website address, for example, a common street-art
technique that was explicitly critiqued by my informants), implicitly attests to this
fact, rejecting any suggestion of instrumental motivation. The reasons for painting
were communicative, experiential, experimental rather than strategic. And thus
whether true or not (as we will see in the following and final validity claim) there
could thus be no suspicion regarding the subjective truthfulness of the speaker
(Cooke 1997: 60). This was a compulsion not born of future desires, but a present
moral obligation.13
The last of the remaining validity aspects, propositional truth, considers the
factuality of any assertion within the objective world (as opposed to the subjective
world encountered through truthfulness and the social world confronted by
rightness). It thus examines the existential content of any statement depending on
two particular conditions: first, that it must be grounded in experience; that is, the
statement may not conflict with dissonant experience; and second, that it must
be discursively redeemable; that is, the statement must be able to hold up against
all counterarguments and command the assent of all potential participants in a
discourse (Habermas 2002: 89). What is important for us to note here however is
that Habermass notion of truth is implicitly fallibilist, one continuously open to
renegotiation through the medium of action. To distinguish true propositions
from false ones then, as Habermas has suggested, one must take recourse to
the judgment of others that is, of all others with whom I could ever enter into
discourse (ibid.: 89), a consensually motivated truth coming to be fruition through
what he considered to be the ideal speech act. When examining Consensual
Ornamentation, one could therefore argue that this appears to be the hardest claim
(in truth) to fulfil, requiring a more precise look at the particular claim made by
the exact work in its extent setting; its veracity or mendacity, therefore, whether its
claim is justified or unjustified (Habermas 2000: 91), could potentially be possible
to discern only through an examination of each unique performance.14 Yet equally,
13
Thus, whilst all of my informants did desire some measure of success, this success
meant solely the ability to continue with what they loved doing, which (in a circular
argument) was working within the street! As discussed earlier, the argument toward
strategic aims falls flat when one realizes the innumerable ways these actors could
increase their economic or cultural capital in a more effective (less time-consuming,
less dangerous, less expensive) manner.
14
As Hugh Baxter has explained however (2011), while all communicative acts
raise all three validity claims, traditionally only one claim is thematic; truth claims
can thus often be seen to work in an indirect or subordinate manner: We would not
Consensual Ornamentation
77
78
2.13Remed,
Amor Al Arte,
Madrid, Spain,
2012
Consensual Ornamentation
79
within the base elements of unity, proportion, scale, contrast, balance and rhythm
(Moughtin, Oc and Tiesdell 1999: 3), acting decoratively through its calligraphic
status. It not only matches the basic definition of ornament, but much like the tags
previously discussed, Remeds work can in fact be seen to be doubly ornamental,
as an addition and embellishment to the letter and an addition and embellishment
to the city in the same moment. Whilst this ornamental status alludes to a clear
personhood intertwining Remeds body with the body of the wall whilst it
can be understood as inherently ambiguous like chalkboard markings, never
being able to be fully erased in what way can we deem this work as something
consensual, something working within Habermass notion of embodied rationality,
within his conception of communicative action?
Firstly then, we can see this work, through its overtly textual status, to be explicitly
stating something; it conforms to a literal vocabulary and grammar, it has a definite
sense and reference. And propositional? It acts to convey information, to remark upon
some specific matter, making a concrete, attestable statement working, as Bal would
put it, through the medium of a text-image (Bal 1999: 4). Not only producing a factdriven declaration however, it can equally be considered an illocutionary act, a fully
performative action; the loving of art is being enacted through the writing upon the
wall of the city, the very act of performance an act of love, the meaning and the action
of the statement signifying the very same thing. It can thus be seen as both a literal
pronouncement and performative enunciation of Remeds love of art. Yet how does
it correspond to the tripartite procedural notions required in Habermass analysis of
2.14Remed,
Blanco Ante Gris
[Gracias por tus
mensages], Madrid,
Spain, 2011
80
the public sphere? First, in terms of a common humanity, Remeds work can be seen
as an act that, through its unrestricted presence in the public domain, disregards any
notion of social status; in terms of common concern, it can be seen as a statement
broadcasting itself outside of the traditional media, working against public authority
through its independent production and against the pure instrumentality of the visual
culture of the city through its non-strategic demands; and in terms of the inclusive
public, it enables pure accessibility to the public of readers, listeners and spectators
through its legibility, its inclusivity, through its refusal of the clique. As a rationally
communicative form it can also be seen to conform to the notion of normative
rightness. Its acceptability as a form of communication in its particular social situation
is attested not only by its clearly supportable statement, not only through Remeds
attempt to establish an interpersonal relationship with his recipients, but is made
manifestly evident by the literal response that Remeds work elicits; as we can see in
Figure 2.14, Remeds messages are often subject to literal responses Gracias por su
mensajes ;), Thank you for your messages rejoinders which proved the contextual
acceptability of his initial proposition. As an example of communicative action it can
also be seen to conform to the notion of subjective truthfulness. Remeds perceived
sincerity can thus be proven through the illicit performance and attendant risk this
produces, through the basic lack of instrumentally motivated gain the message
attempted (proven through the lack of identifying name or website attached), a
sincerity which Remeds resultant response A ti para sentir los!, to you for feeling
them!, can be seen to reinstate. And as an ideal performative act it can conform to
the final validity claim of propositional truth. Its acceptance within the sphere of the
external, objective world being shown through its very discursive redeemablity, the
propositional counterargument to Remeds initial statement being refuted through
its very existence.
Its simple. I paint in the street because I want to have one pure moment. One
moment where I can express myself simply and clearly to everyone who passes in
the street. Ive always painted on canvas, and Ive always been able to show my
studio art to a gallery, but the work in the street is like the sum of all my knowledge,
all my life, all the evolution I have had. Its all of that together put in the street. I
mean it works both ways, the street influences the studio and the studio the street
of course. But my expectations, and maybe with 3TTMan and other friends, is to
get closer to the condition of the studio when we paint in the street. That is the best
gift I can give to myself and the people. To be true in the streets, to be as dedicated
there as I am in the studio. Thats what I think people deserve. Not to sound
egotistical. But they dont deserve just a tag. I mean I LOVE tags. Because I know
them, I understand them, I read them, I write them. But when Im painting in the
street its for the universe, the whole city, not just for the ones that are making tags.
Im painting for your mother and mine, Im painting for everyone I have never even
met. So I have to make it touchable. I want people to see it and understand what
Im saying. I just try to make something beautiful that will talk without me having
to be there to explain it [] Now my paintings, in the street people see it and I dont
have to say anything. With all of them I think people can understand it straight
away through its simplicity. I love that. It makes it all more simple, more direct, it
allows me to get a true feedback. I can really communicate with people. I know they
will see it, I know they will understand it. And it gives a real communication to the
street, to all the people in it (23/8/2008).
Consensual Ornamentation
81
2.153TTMans
Viva la Calle Libre
(Madrid, Spain,
2010) after a
half-hearted
(or perhaps
2/3-hearted)
erasure by local
authorities, an
attempted erasure
only serving to
give the original
work more
prominence
82
Consensual Ornamentation
83
something fun, respectful, honest. And you could see people really understood it.
Theres a direct relation and reaction Theres no other art that works in this way,
with no intermediary. I mean I dont pretend to be a type of social artist that causes
a revolution in the people, and brings up the masses against the government, for
me that cause is too high. I just want to have a relation, a connection with the
people, I actually think that is worth a lot more. I just want to provoke a thought,
to put it there, and then let people see what they think about it, not force them to
think something (23/8/2010).
Untitled by Eltono
The tuning fork. Eltonos iterable, always evolving design. Situated at the furthest
end of our three examples in purely textual to expressive terms, in levels of overt
propositionality to ambiguity, and thus possibly the most difficult to coincide with
the strict technicalities of Consensual Ornamentation. Although I will argue that this
image is still one searching for a consensual response, here we have no textual
elements. A form of almost total abstraction. We have seven discrete, sharp lines
set out in white, red and blue, alongside three matching triangles set in red and
blue: figures which snake around each other to form Eltonos eponymous shape.
Situated upon a black, painted wooden board set within a red-bricked wall (acting
as an almost perfect canvas) and adjacent to a tag-covered electrical box and an
advert-covered general store. Again, illegally produced, again using the medium
(street wall) but not tools (acrylic paint) of traditional graffiti, and again, for the
final time, working in an entirely different way from either what are too commonly
termed either graffiti or street-art.
2.16Eltono,
Untitled, Utrecht,
Netherlands, 2013
84
Consensual Ornamentation
85
2.18Eltono,
Untitled, Madrid,
Spain, 1998
What I want to argue here is that, as a speech act, Eltonos image can function
through the means of what Michal Ephratt (2008) has termed an Eloquent Silence
(ibid.: 1909), a silence not denoting an absence of meaning but one that is fully
part of communication (ibid.: 1910), not silence as a pause for speech, nor silence
as a method of generating power over another, but as an active means chosen by
the speaker to communicate his or her message (ibid.: 1913). In this manner, silence
can take on referential roles, one can make claims and proclaim propositions using
eloquent silence (ibid.: 1916) such as a collective silence which can express a
negative answer or such as the famous blank page in Laurence Sternes Tristam
Shandy which informs us of Yoricks death. And thus working against both the licit
and illicit images which it lies beside overtly echoing the operational modality,
mimicking the medium and techniques of each I will here suggest that Eltonos
work can be understood to be proposing a form of simplicity, a sense of quietude.
Working against the violence of the official signs as much as the violence of graffiti,
it can be seen as an example of what Bal (2001) terms speech-art, images which
seem to say look! while often implying Thats how it is (ibid.: 165), a visual
performance of something new in the street urging us to see the very street in
a correspondingly new way. Working through a visual simplicity, a visual order,
it can be making a proposition through its being rather than through its saying,
through a refusal of the noise we are so often forced to encounter. As Eltono
himself suggested, his move away from traditional graffiti was undertaken in order
to encounter a wider public audience, produced so as to find a harmony with
both the material and social body of the city (integrating both its architectonic
and societal elements in a more consensual manner). It was an explicit search
for the notion of common humanity, where every member of the public domain
was invited into the discourse (enacted through its visual simplicity); a search
86
Consensual Ornamentation
87
88
2.19Homer
[Sasha Kurmaz],
Illegal Inscription,
Kiev, Ukraine, 2010
In all three of the specific case studies presented above, then, in all the images
and artefacts discussed within this chapter as a whole, I would argue that we can
see an ornamental form enmeshed within the very centre of the public sphere,
an ornamental form in fact moulding a coherent public sphere through its very
existence. I would suggest we can distinguish an aesthetic searching for agreement,
searching for accord and union with its surrounding community, a style of parietal
writing striving to act in an open manner within its available surroundings
irrespective of its officially permissible status and willing to rationally debate
this standing. As clearly ornate additions to architectural facades, as productions
transcending the very impermeability of their now porous walls, these ornamental
forms both embellish and beautify their surfaces in their own idiosyncratic ways,
they form a unity between expressive meaning and construction, a unity of form
and function that makes the images produced far from the empty decorative effects
created by many modern forms of ornament, modern forms that replicate a past
ornamental structure with no understanding of their initiatory purpose. Here, I would
contend, we can find an unmitigated correspondence between appearance and
use, between representational and architectonic meanings, the designs acting as
performances of thought, of the argumentative impulse, the social beliefs of the very
producers themselves. Even as the experience of production itself is a key element
within the productive process the jouissance, spontaneity, and simple corporeal
interaction with the city that will be discussed in Section 2 it is these intentional,
communicative values that I believe uphold the core distinctions between
Consensual and Agonistic Ornamentation, this communicative search for consensus
on the one hand and dissensus on the other that defines them at their very base.
2.20Erosie, I Hereby Apologise for the Damage Done, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2007
90
Habermass work, then, despite the numerous and often impassioned critiques set
against it,15 can thus still be seen to hold a key place within the timeless search for a
liberating model of a public sphere. Understood through the medium of Consensual
Ornamentation, we can perceive a clear continuance of the enduring search for the
good life, we can see the abiding desire for an authentic way of communicating in
the modern, complex city. And seen through this Habermasian lens, we can see
Consensual Ornamentation striving to re-work both the conceptions of the classic
public sphere a place where one can discuss issues away from the demands of
the state or the market as well as the concepts of communicative action where
we can then discuss these issues rationally, openly, where everyone can partake in
discourse. We can find an ornament with a consensual order at its heart, a form of
public, insurgent ornamentation with both a communicative interconnectedness
and openness imbued within it.
15
Critiques often based on a descriptive analysis of his work, an assessment
of whether there ever actually was the equality of class, gender and so on that he
contended, rather than an argument of a prescriptive nature that I am attempting here,
a discussion of the subjunctive, utopian, philosophical project that he proposed
3
Agonistic Ornamentation
If one is pagan, it is certainly not because one thinks that one game is better
than another; it is because one has several kinds of games at ones disposal []
One can introduce into the pragmatics, into our relations with others,
forms of language that are at the same time unexpected and unheard
of, as forms of efficacy. Either because one has made up new moves
in an old game or because one has made up a new game.
Jean Franois Lyotard
92
Permission to reprint images of the Choque Gallery Invasion, I have been, very
regrettably, unable to obtain. The Belas Artes Invasion depicted here, an event also
organized by Critpa Djan and Rafael Pixobomb, is thus used as a visual illustration of a
similar act. For the actual images of the attack at the Choque Gallery, please see here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixoartatack/sets/72157624054565690/.
Agonistic Ornamentation
95
96
Agonistic Ornamentation
97
3.4Neko,
Untitled, Madrid,
Spain, 2009
98
For Lyotard then, truly paralogical art would bear witness to the differends2 so
present in society, the instants wherein something which should be able to be put
into phrases cannot be phrased in the accepted idioms (Lyotard 1988: 56), where
one is forced to find a way to phrase the silence that cannot be phrased (White
1994: 490). Yet not only should art evoke or testify toward these differends, it must
exacerbate them so as to resist the injustice which silences those who cannot
2
Agonistic Ornamentation
99
speak the language of the master (Lyotard in Readings 1991: xxx). Through all these
techniques, through petit-recits, through language-games, through paralogy, one
could then become released from what Lyotard termed as the American position,3
one could come to see consensus solely as a particular state of discussion rather
than its end (Lyotard 1984: 656). Through the fluid space of the agon, through the
disruption of all truth, all metanarratives, one could form a space which could battle
the pernicious faade of harmony and consensus, which could refuse efficiency
and embrace sensuality, refuse homogeneity and embrace multiplicity; one could
create a wild, creative energy which could never become bound to a single logic or
discursive form (White 1994: 48082), one could form a boundless contest in which
it was not resolutions but utterances, not deductions but moves which were of the
utmost importance.
Agonistic Ornamentation
101
If there is a vibrant, political public sphere where this kind of confrontation can
take place, it is less likely that there will be confrontations about non-negotiable
issues or essentialist identities. What Im arguing is that this form of agonistic
public sphere is not something that should be seen as negative or threatening for
democracy. On the contrary, it is what can keep democracy alive and impede the
danger of extreme right-wing movements that could mobilize passions in an antidemocratic way (ibid.: 124).
3.6Remio,
Untitled, So Paulo,
Brazil, 2012
communicative one (ibid.: 95). The aim towards a universal consensus was thus seen
as the real threat to democracy, one that could lead to violence being unrecognized
and hidden behind appeals to rationality, one disguising the necessary frontiers
and forms of exclusion behind pretences of neutrality (ibid.: 22). By privileging
rationality, as Mouffe continues to argue, both the deliberative and the aggregative
perspectives leave aside [] the crucial role, played by passions and emotions in
securing allegiance to democratic values (ibid.: 95). And thus through focusing on
desire, on fantasies, on the corporeal force of the everyday, Mouffe comes to find
a notion of citizenship firmly opposed to mere interests, opposed to the notion
of rational economic man, ones returning the passion that had been eliminated
from the private sphere by the magnitude of consensuality. The aim of an agonistic
democracy must therefore be to speak to people about their passions in order to
mobilize them toward democratic designs (Mouffe 2001: 123), to advocate an ideal
of the public sphere that rests upon the notion of a fervid agonistic confrontation.
Only by separating the notion of politics an ensemble of practices, discourses and
institutions seeking to establish a certain order and the notion of the political the
dimension of antagonism that is inherent in human relations (ibid.: 101) can we
then can start to construct a democratic sphere able to place the notions of power
and conflict at their centre, perceiving every act of power to show the traces of
exclusion (Mouffe 2005a: 99), every act of power to be an exclusion. Only then will
we see how politics has always attempted to placate, to domesticate conflict, the
exclusion predicated by consensuality being what Mouffe terms an eradication of
the political (ibid.: 101).
The political hence becomes a space from which to elude the populist zeal
engendered by the democratic deficit, to combat the perception (and often the
actuality) that there is no contestational space from which to put forward ones
opinions, to curtail the natural movement toward extremisms, which we have
seen steadily rising within Europe and the US (where this third-way consensual
politics has grown so strong). Mouffe thus aims not to resist or oppose any specific
institution, class or group, but simply any technique of power. Political struggle is
seen as a movement toward the possibility of self-overcoming, of self-creation, the
Nietzschean moment of genuine freedom fulfilled through the ability to declare
ones otherness (Villa 1992a: 290). And while agonism is thus generally construed as
a struggle against, here it can more profitably be seen as a struggle for (Hillier 2003:
43), a place where agonistic tension can act as both a barrier of protection against
the totalitarian imperative and the first line of attack toward the establishment
of new social formations. Foucaults suggestion (1984) that just as one must not
be for consensuality, one must be against nonconsensuality (ibid.: 379) can thus
be seen in a clearer light; contestation is about the transgression of power, the
affirmation of negation (Pickett 1996: 451); it is not simply conflict for conflicts sake,
not dissensus as a wild instability, or anarchic nihilism. It means, as its Latin root
dissentire would suggest, simply to differ in sentiment; a spirited opinion acting in
non-conformance with the whole. It is a movement which can hence undermine
or at least weaken any given set of limits in order to attenuate their violence (ibid.:
451), a movement through which one can make both real changes to domineering
societal powers while simultaneously creating new forms of progressive subjectivity.
Agonistic Ornamentation
103
3.7Katsu, Fuck
You, New York,
USA, 2011
3.8Nov York,
Untitled, New
York, USA, 2010.
Novs work
here is a classic
example of this
movement over,
rather than with
the surface, the
piece seamlessly
moving from wall
to glass to the
wall again, then
moving beyond
even the edge of
the building itself
And whilst like its Consensual partner, Agonistic Ornamentation sets out a statement
in direct contrast to the manipulative, instrumental effects of the existent visual
culture in the city, whilst it seeks to provide a direct contrast to the current media
discourse, it functions not through a proposition but a battle, not discourse but
utterances, through games intent on friction and tension as much through their
very form as their reception.
Secondly, I want to propose Agonistic Ornamentation as a discourse working
through Mouffes concept of Agonistic Pluralism, a discourse aiming not to develop
types of argumentation but types of practices, one working through agonism
not antagonism, an ethos of contestation and engagement which reveres rather
than reduces true multiplicity. Focusing on the passionate and fantastical over
the rational and deliberate, Agonistic Ornamentation can then be linked to the
constitutive outside of our current political system that Mouffe argues truly critical
practices evoke, shirking politics and embracing the political through the creation
of agonistic public spaces. Rather than the visually decipherable images we find in
Consensual Ornamentation then, it is an intentionally narrow wide public Agonistic
Ornamentation seeks to address, it is difference, fracture they seek to display. It is
not simply a violence, a so often depicted anarchy that these cultural producers seek
to ferment (an impulsion which in fact more often comes from the suppression of
difference [Connolly 1995: xxi]) but sooner a pressure, and a presence, that acts
constantly, if unevenly, along the entire boundary of authorization(Bhabha 2004: 156).
3.9Nov York, Nov York Needs Release, New York, USA, 2010
Rather than the order of Consensual Ornamentation then, the working with as seen so
clearly in Eltonos work (as elucidated in his quote on p. 86), Agonistic Ornamentation
is a practice that works against, working over surfaces not with them, working to
resist our architecture not to enhance it, using the public sphere not simply as a
canvas but as a more multidimensional site of practice.
Both Lyotards theoretical and Mouffes applied frameworks will thus be argued
to align with the firm belief in a vociferous, contestatory mode of social practice
espoused by the practitioners of Agonistic Ornamentation, to complement its
valorization of struggle and dissensus, of contest and dispute. Attempting to found
not agreement, but a state of deep plurality, it will be seen as an aesthetic realm
promoting notions of difference, disequilibrium and heterogeneity, a discourse
intent not on replacing one order with another but instead on undermining,
negating the notion of order itself. Just as in our previous chapter however,
these broad arguments must now be more specifically and clearly delineated; I
must show exactly how these theoretical and aesthetics discourses come to so
unexpectedly converge.
Agonistic Ornamentation
107
so too each act of agonistic, ornamental cultural production can thus be seen
to function as a steppingstone toward the completion of the next whilst also
serving as a reference to the previous; each tag, each ornament, working to
push the boundaries of the last, the intention simply being constant aesthetic
exploration rather than culmination or conclusion. Agonistic Ornamentation
can thus be seen as a quite literal example of what Lyotard (1989) termed an
imaged text (a calligraphic ornament, a figure working as text and non-text); an
image that surprises the eye and the ear and the mind by a perfectly improbable
arrangement of the parts (one that instigates inconceivable relations between
shapes and forms); an imaged text that, like poetic language, is possessed, is
haunted by the figure (ibid.: 2930) (a text, a signature, a name, which is elevated
beyond itself, beyond the literal and into metaphor). It is a dissident narrative
enacted on the public surface of the city.
Moreover, Agonistic Ornamentation can likewise be seen to converge quite
directly with the procedural workings of Lyotards language games, the games, or
perhaps utterances, defying the dominant discursive fields, the phrase regimens
which allude toward the innate diversity of potential meaning. Forming a
knowledge which is not simply a tool of the authorities quite clearly working
directly against law and order but instead a figure that can come to refine
our sensitivity to differences and our ability to tolerate the incommensurable
(Lyotard 1984: xxv) its openly visible exhibition of the literal antithetic forcing
its viewers into an encounter these recalcitrant ornaments form a separation
from the dominant language itself, they form islands of language, each of them
ruled by a different regime, untranslatable into the others (Lyotard 1993: 20).
3.11Turbo,
Untitled, Paris,
France, 2008
3.12Turbo,
Untitled, Paris,
France, 2007
Agonistic Ornamentation
109
Trying to find new solutions to letter forms (as the artist Petro termed it), trying
to find new ways of playing with the same 26 archetypes was understood as an
illimitable, irrepressible task. The scripted enunciation of ones chosen name,
morphed, stretched, elided, repeated a thousand times through incessant
invention (an innovation not refining the systems efficiency but revivifying
the truth of art, an invention producing more inventions, one changing the
pragmatics of knowledge [Readings 1991: 55]), thus comes to function through
a dual mode of contestation, initially contestatory through its very ornamental
state (as an illicit act at its core, fraught through its very placement), and latterly
contestatory through its clash with the accepted language itself, a use of language
that wrestles with its natural state, an artistic signature that is both means and
ends in itself. As Baudrillard suggested, the very pseudonyms employed within
this calligraphic framework meant that indeterminacy was set against the
system itself, these scripts resisting every interpretation and every connotation
(Baudrillard 1993 [1976]: 30). Tags thus functioned to derail the common system
of designations (ibid.: 30), bursting into reality like a scream, an interjection, an
anti-discourse (ibid.: 30). And through the discovery of these new forms, these
new subtexts to previously agreed upon texts, Agonistic Ornamentation can thus
separate language from itself, shatter it from within in order to discover new
rules, new possibilities.
Yet aside from the disputes Agonistic Ornamentation enacts upon spatial
surroundings, upon formal language, upon the fellow participants of the language
game, there are further ones provoked with their very selves, an exterior struggle
through a classic agonic contest (through a battle to invent new moves, new
rules) and an interior struggle to simply produce more, to push ones practice
to the very edge. We can thus find an infinite cycle of repetition, modification,
transformation, a search for the perfect form which the practitioners themselves
acknowledge will almost certainly never be reached; we can find a game
functioning against the privacy of the wall, against the architecture of the city,
against the use of language, ones adversaries, ones competitors, oneself. And
every action, every marking can hence be grasped as an illustration of the novatio,
where the text he writes (the postmodern artist or writer that is), where the
work he produces are not in principle governed by preestablished rules, where
the artist and the writer [are] working without rules in order to formulate the
rules of what will have been done (Lyotard 1984: 81). Agonistic Ornamentation can
thus be understood as a discursive intervention within language, a disruption
which takes root through contesting rules, forms, principles and positions (Best
and Kellner 1991: 163); it is an interruption of the metanarrative which takes root
within the porous walls of the city itself.
It is hence not only the basely dissensual positionality of the practitioners
discussed here (their desire to work against the norms of the city), their explicit
attempt to form an innately partial, divided text (one visually embracing alterity),
but their deeply pagan movement, their attempt to radically transform the rules of
the city, the rules of law, the rules of art, to form an energy unbound by instrumental
logic, that places them directly within Lyotards understanding of agonism.
3.13 and 3.14Mathieu Tremblin, Tag Clouds Colombier Optique, Rennes, France, 2010. Whilst the
translation Tremblin here undertakes can provide an amazing insight into the scopic abilities of the
agonistic artist, their capacity to so clearly decipher this ostensible pollution, Tremblins highly astute
work is unable to account for a vast amount of information a seasoned agonistic practitioner would
also perceive information pertaining to issues such as style, technique, experience, mind state etc.
Agonistic Ornamentation
111
3.15Read More
Books, Untitled,
Brooklyn, New
York, 2008
The basely aneconomic condition of the artefacts produced then, their lack of
a bottom line (ibid.: 55), means that the artistic innovation which takes place
produces nothing but a continuous displacement; it refuses to make the system
more efficient (in fact attacking this instrumental efficiency through their
inalienable status), refuses to supply it with new products (the products that the
insatiable art market needs to survive5) exemplifying the continuous struggle
over meaning within all language, the struggle emerging through the innate
polyphony of our social body. Agonistic Ornamentation is thus an emblematic
instance of an aesthetic practice that both is and is not art at the same time (ibid.:
55), a practice whose very practitioners themselves often refuse this label, who
aim at producing effects rather than producing art, who aim always to find the
move that will displace the rules of the game, the impossible or unforeseeable
move (ibid.: 545). And, as such, every example of this illicit ornament evokes
a basic differend, testifying to the injustice of modern neo-liberal space, the
impossibility of legally entering into the domain of representation without capital
or power. As a confrontation of imagination and reason, Agonistic Ornamentation
is thus suppressed, repressed due to this differend, it is marked as vandalism not
art, as dirt, pollution, and the purity of the increasingly privatized public sphere
retained.
Agonistic Ornamentation
113
way. Establishing the boundaries of the community from where they emerge,
Agonistic Ornamentation thus expresses a plurality yet, through their innate
visibility to those on the outside of this community, at the same time transforms
a conflictual relation into a relation of exchange, even if that relation is a
relation infused with tension. Refashioning the common spaces of the city,
reforming everyday culture (ibid.: 7), eluding the grasp of value and market
exchange, Agonistic Ornamentation thus reveals alternatives to and discrepancies
within the prevailing system, questioning the norms and nature of contemporary
city life.
Moreover, through providing a space for political dissent even while not working
with any overtly political intent, Agonistic Ornamentation works directly against
the apparent escalation of the democratic deficit through its demonstration of
a passionate form of popular action, working not through the deadening space
of politics but within the potentiality of the political. Shirking away from any
superficial political posturing such as sloganeering or overt political imagery
for example, the often quite antiestablishmentarian stance of their producers is
reflected through the intensely political medium these ornaments utilize rather
than any nave political message, the very materiality of their works bestowing
a potent sectarian intensity upon them, a clear ideological framework. As Mouffe
has indicated (2001), any attempt to make a distinction between political art and
non-political art becomes a fruitless venture when we recognize that every form
of artistic practice either contributes to the reproduction of the given common
sense and in that sense is political or contributes to the deconstruction or
critique of it (ibid.: 100). Every form of art, as Mouffe continues, thus has a
political dimension (ibid.: 100), not a politics that solely consists in domesticating
hostility and in trying to defuse the potential antagonism that exists in human
relations (Mouffe 2005a: 101), but the ever present possibility of antagonism
inherent within the political, a form of political inquiry involving decisions which
require us to make a choice between conflicting alternatives (Mouffe 2005b:
10). Agonistic Ornamentation can thus be seen to locate itself within a setting
where the post-political consensus celebrated as a great advance for democracy
can be critiqued, where artistic practices can disrupt the smooth image of
contemporary neo-liberal urbanity (Mouffe 2008: 13). Through resisting the
established patterns of city life, through setting up a visual alternative a visual
disturbance , it promotes a notion of public space in which conflict, division,
and instability do not ruin the democratic sphere but instead become part of
the very conditions of its existence (Deutsche 1998: 289), in which the refusal
to follow the normative patterns of city life takes on an innate, rather than overt
political status.
Working in a quite obviously divergent way to Consensual Ornamentation then,
Agonistic Ornamentation discourages any attempt to settle disagreement and
disputation through a regression to a balanced consensus, it spurns the aspiration
toward openly discursive means of action. And rather than the reformation
of the Habermasian public sphere as we saw recreated in the former chapter,
Agonistic Ornamentation evokes a discourse constituted not merely through a
3.16 and
3.17Nano4814
at work, Untitled,
Vigo, Spain, 2009
different or alternative idiom, but one that in other contexts would be regarded
with hostility, or with a sense of indecorousness (Warner 2002: 424); working
within the space of the adversarial, upon the border-line between outside and
inside, upon the literal surface of protection, reception and projection which
mark the boundary zones of our cities (Bhabha 2004: 156), it thus treats artistic
performance as a never-ending contest, as a site in which friction is not tolerated
but advocated. We can thus see these patently ornamental, calligraphic practices
to be functioning within the tensions and ambivalences of a counter-authority
(ibid.: 33), we can see how these practices enacted through the dynamics of
writing of ecriture (Bhabha 1988: 8), can come to reveal the ambivalent and
fantasmatic texts that make the political possible (ibid.: 10), to reveal the alterity
confronted through the very witnessing of these illicit, fantasmatic images.
Yet, and once again, after more of this dense textual description, I want now to
return to the images which were suspended at the beginning of this chapter, to
revisit these examples which will be seen as representative instances of Agonistic
Ornamentation. Which of these, then, could we say works within Lyotards
conception of language games, petit rcits or the pagan? Which function within
Mouffes conception of the political, of the movement from antagonism to
agonism? Which embrace the counterpublic, the anti-discursive, the contest of
the agon?
Agonistic Ornamentation
115
3.18 and
3.19Nano4814
at work, Untitled,
Vigo, Spain, 2009
spatial tensions present within modern urban life. Its passionate inscription
produced in defiance of instrumental reason, formed in lieu of any payment, in
full understanding of the potential danger implicit in its performance can thus
appear as a practice in direct defiance to the staid homogeneity of the rational
public sphere, allied to emotions and sensations forged outside of the everyday.
It is not only a clear language game then, a game played within certain modifiable
rules, a contest with a set group of participants, a move or a ruse which works
through the imagination and produces effects rather than truth; but its
individuality, the stain of personhood which it elicits, places it as a distinctly
localized, petit recit; it is a singular act speaking to a singular public, an imaged
text which forces us to acknowledge a foreign body in the city. Set within an
ideal of publicity that offers opportunities of identification around democratic
political alternatives (Mouffe 2002: 11), within an idea of publicness that creates
an empathetic relation with the others who uphold a belief in disputative
expression, Nanos image not only signifies an alternative to the norm then,
but works through a distinctly agonistic, rather than antagonistic frame. Being
produced within the common symbolic space of the city (Mouffe 2005a: 13),
it challenges the other visual culture which it surrounds, engaging in a contest
with their rational understanding of the city rather than refusing to participate
in the city at all. And as what would appear to be a clear agonistic intervention
in public space, we can thus see this image unveiling what is repressed by the
dominant consensus (Mouffe 2008: 1213), unveiling a constitutive outside, an
undercurrent, a minority set against the sterile, lifeless state of the public sphere.
Playing with the city then, using the barred windows as a climbing frame, the
blank walls as a place of communication, Nano acts politically not through any
explicit political message, not through any institutional aesthetic, but through
the reconstitution of the written form, through the re-appropriation of public
space. And, much like Mouffes discussion of the contemporary post-political
attempt to deal with the problem of political extremists (by placing them in what
she terms a cordon sanitaire), a tactic that endeavours to deal with them solely
on a moral, rather than political level, the attempt to deal with the problem of
these illegally produced images so too follow much the same pattern.6 Agonistic
Ornamentation is hence placed outside of politics through its depiction as an
evil other, an immoral sphere of activity, a discourse in need of banishment from
the collective moral register. Yet in practice, giving a voice to all those who are
silenced within the framework of the existing hegemony (Mouffe 2007: 45),
6
As she continues, frontiers between Us and Them are constantly being
created; but, since the Them can no longer be defined in political terms, these frontiers
are drawn in moral terms, between us, the good and them, the evil ones. My concern
is that this type of politics one played out in the moral register is not conducive to
the creation of the agonistic public sphere which, as I have argued, is necessary for a
robust democratic life. When the opponent is defined not in political but in moral terms,
he can be envisaged only as an enemy, not an adversary: no agonistic debate is possible
with the evil them; they must be eradicated (Mouffe 2002: 15).
Agonistic Ornamentation
117
giving a voice to those who desire to participate in the public sphere, images
such as Nanos in fact render their deep commitment to the city, forming a visual
indication of the agon, a critique key to the maintenance of an emancipative
polis.
When Im in the street, I see traces of all the people who pass by, tagging,
stickering, postering, whatever, I see something there. But I also see all the hidden
spots in Madrid, the places you have to really know the city to get to, places that
are also being hit [utilized] by a lot of people. And I like that. Maybe the street
is not always being used in the best way, but at least its being used, and thats
positive for me. Its kind of like more hidden and endogamic, from me to my peers
instead of for the general public. Compared to other cities especially, its not as in
your face as Berlin, or how Barcelona used to be with tagging everywhere, but its
a more pure essence of how the streets used to be. Its like a conversation between
the people that are actually using the streets, more than the public itself. Of
course they see it, but they dont really understand it. And I love the feeling that
things are happening in the street but not for everybody. Its our private world in
the center of the city. Were talking to each other, we have a real dialogue going
on. And it makes me feel real active because I can feel the city [] Of course, at
the bottom of everything there is some rebellion, with all of us I think. But it turns
into something much more. Now its not really something I think about. All the
things I do in the street are part of me, and Im not gonna suddenly change. I just
have to do it no matter what happens (28/7/9).
TBC by Spok
TBC. Spoks crews moniker emblazoned across a group of three shutters, an
acronym whose meanings could fill the rest of the page (Tpico Barrio Centro,
The Best Choice, The Business Class being just three that first came to mind).
A bold, rudimentary inscription covering an opaque palimpsest of further
images, a palimpsest with three key stratums that I wish to unpack. The first (Layer I),
the shutters themselves, imprinted with a legal graffiti commission produced by
Spok himself for the clothing store Sfera, a photorealistic production now only
partially visible in the blue and black background to the edges of the shutters.
The second (Layer II), a group of throw-ups produced on top of this original
production, Buse and Zoan from the FTS crew (Fuck The System) being the chief
perpetrators (the Bus of Buse visible on the far left of the shutter, Zoan still partially
evident to the far right). And the third (and here final) reclamation by Spok himself
(Layer III): a brazen white splattering of paint formed over the entire faade, a
production formed (and unmistakably so, to those for whom it was produced)
with a paint-fuelled fire extinguisher, the most violent form of graffiti tool
available. We thus have Spok. Buse and Zoan on top of Spok. Spok on top of
Buse and Zoan on top of Spok. And clear to all involved that this final layer had
been produced by Spok and no one else (because the original layer had been
produced by him), clear, that is, to the other participants of this language game
in the city, to those who understood this dense jumble of coloured pigmentation
as a multilayered surface of meaning, a surface of material communication.
3.20Spok,
TBC, Madrid,
Spain, 2009
Agonistic Ornamentation
119
Finally we have both camps competition with the city itself, using their aesthetic tools
in a dynamic substantiation of their citizenship, battling to take part in the public
visual culture of the city at whatever cost. We thus have a contest being enacted
upon the city in two quite differing modalities, the first, with the vast majority of the
public (in general, but of course not always) appreciating their ornaments only as
a mass of pollution and dirt, a visuality functioning as a proclamation of difference
but no more; and the second, between the agonistic participants themselves (to
the almost total ignorance of the general population), appreciating the minutiae
of challenges and interrogations, of responses and ripostes, a visuality functioning
through an incessant aesthetic encounter. Using the public space of the city as an
open stage for their physical performance, then, promoting open disputation and
conflict as part of a committed, participatory relationship to the street itself, we can
hence see this realm functioning in a way as far from the traditional gallery system
as one could imagine; the conflation of finance and fine-art revoked in exchange
for a presentation of a Foucauldian permanent provocation (provocation in
terms of its original Latin meaning provocare, to challenge or call forward), the
patterned markings being generated embracing competition as both means and
end, embracing contest as an indispensable rudiment of social life.
This image thus illustrates the local narratives, the moves, the ruses, the rules as
seen in Lyotards discordant language games, the contest which comes to produce
effects, to provoke more art, to provoke more ornament. It sets itself directly
within Mouffes search for agonistic engagement, something outside the centre,
something outside the sphere of accepted politics, an insurgent practice which
signifies plurality. It this signifies the remainder left behind by consensus, an agonic
zone where difference is decorated and scratched onto the city. And it can be seen
as a combination of both the discursive and figural which transforms a physical
3.21 Spok at
work, TBC, Madrid,
Spain, 2009
battle into that of an aesthetic contest, an image with disputation and struggle
embedded into its form.
It was all about us. We were writers. And the only thing I wanted back then was
to communicate with the other writers in the street. We knew everyone in the city
would see it, we knew they wouldnt understand it my parents, your parents
but we were only doing it for those who knew. I would think about it every day.
Painting, painting, painting, painting. You needed to paint more and better than
the rest. To get known, because no-one knew you at first, you had to be known
and then known as the best, the most dedicated and the most stylish. So it wasnt
only about vandalism. We wanted to evolve, ourselves, our style. Constantly.
For me the best thing to do was to evolve your style, never to do the same thing
again and again, because we wanted to do something bigger than graffiti, but
at the same time its the biggest thing you could ever do! Just catching a tag for
example, its the most perfect thing. You wouldnt believe it. The flow, the style,
and you show people that youre still alive [] Its like being fit. I really want to
be fit because I want to show that Im still in it, that I can still compete. I want to
show that Im still here. And graffiti is like that. You have to constantly push it to
maintain []
You cant imagine how good the feeling is. Illegally creating something. Can you
imagine what an amazing concept that is! We went there, to the street, to the
subway, to the yards, and we were young when we started, its a scary thing to do,
the adrenalin is pushing to the limit. And it was something totally out of nothing.
I remember everything. A thousand different stories. The pieces, the sensations.
Like when we got into a chase, the world just completed stopped. There was
nothing apart from that. And I would never enjoy a mission fully if it didnt finish
running! Like a game. Us and them. We want to paint, theyre trying to stop us,
but were going do it whatever. So it was something to fight against things, but to
create things at the same time. Creating something out of nothing. Nothing for
me can be more important that that (27/7/9).
Once again, please note that the images depicted here are of the Belas Artes
Invasion, not the Choque Cultural invasion. See footnote 1 in this chapter for more
details.
3.24The Belas
Artes Invasion. So
Paulo, Brazil, 2008
Unwittingly, Eltono, who a few months prior to the attack had produced
a poster in conjunction with the gallery Pixo Gratis (I mark/I paint/I write for
free) soon became embroiled into the affair, his image the point of ignition, the
final indignity, the fury (as explained on the front of the pixadores webpage,
before its subsequent removal by the host Flickr), that provoked the pixadores
assault on the premises. For them, Eltonos poster was another example of the
co-option of pixao for what they deemed purely pecuniary purposes (it being
for sale in the gallery itself, as well, quite crucially for Eltono, being widely and
freely distributed in the street), another example of the appropriation of what
they believed was their pure, inalienable aesthetic. Whilst Eltono had produced
the print in total support of the pixadores, simply referencing (as much of his
work did)11 the indigenous visual culture of the region where it was produced
using the original techniques of lambe lambe12 hand-set letterpress posters
(in fact printed with some of the last remaining master craftsman of this form),
being affixed, illegally, all over the city (referencing the non-merchantable nature
of both pixao and illicit street images in general) for the pixadores its open,
communicative intentions was too much to bear. Even as he was attempting to
describe the core graffiti or pixao ideology (the posters themselves intoning
sem aviso sem permisso, without permission without notice), the tension
emerged through the differing discursive intentionality of these forms, through
the respectively inward and outward looking desires of Agonistic and Consensual
Ornamentation coming into direct confrontation.
The invasion of the Choque Gallery thus perfectly illustrates the differences
between these two practices of insurgent ornamentation, a state of deep (but,
as we will come to see, not irreconcilable) difference between a system seeking
centrifugal motion on the one hand and centripetal movement on the other;
between a system aiming to reach the entire demos through its ornamental
practices and one aiming to confine itself to its own restricted fraternity; a system
seeking a culture of harmony in the first case and a culture of opposition in the
second.13 Whilst Eltono wanted to talk about pixao with the entire public, the
pixadores desired only to talk about it amidst the privacy of the counterpublic.
Whilst Eltono sought legibility and simplicity, the pixadores craved inscrutability
and obfuscation. Whilst Eltono desired discursive communication, the pixadores
11
Eltonos earlier project Pinto Gratis (I Paint for Free) project undertaken
in Madrid and replicating the miniature household painter-and-decorators sticker
advertisements placed all over the city can be seen as a first stage of the Pixo Gratis
project, one equally extolling the aneconomic nature of illegal street painting. See
Figure 3.25 for an example.
12
Lambe lambe is an autochthonous print system used in Brazil (and in So Paolo
especially), mostly utilized to publicize traditional local music performances.
13
These types of confrontations have occurred all over the world; in London (with
Banksys work being defaced by the graffiti artist 10Foot), in New York (with Failes
defacement by the Splasher), as well as in sites from Madrid to Melbourne, Buenos
Aires to Berlin.
Agonistic Ornamentation
125
fought for figural sensation. Yet what frustrated Eltono the most, as we will see
below, was the simple impossibility of discussing this issue with his opponents,
the refusal of the pixadores to enter into a rational discourse with him. And whilst
this may not have been the intractable differend we see emergent between the
gallery and the pixadores, it was still a blockage to communication which Eltono
was attempting to specifically counteract in his work, an obstruction to open
communication which had led to his original movement away from agonism and
towards consensuality (as he explained on p. 86). Both practices may have been
attempting to negotiate and access the public sphere, then, to engage within the
democratic process, yet they undertook this task through almost exactly contrary
ways; one through disorder and disruption, the other accord and agreement.
They were both insurgent ornaments, but ones with very different notions of
order embedded within them.
Yeah, I was suddenly kind of in the centre of this big trouble because of the
pixao poster. Which was saying pixo gratis, I paint for free, or I do graffiti for
free. Its I write, its I paint pixao, I paint graffiti. So the idea of the poster
was a project Ive been doing for years,14 but they [this group of pixadores] didnt
understand, maybe they didnt try to understand. So they were saying that I
was using pixao to make money, but of course it wasnt like that for me. It
was totally the contrary to what they were thinking. I was actually apoyando,
supporting the pixao, its something I love and respect. Its an incredible
movement. But there was no sense to what these guys were doing. If they
went to a big gallery [to paint over it] and they did the same thing, it could
have made sense, perhaps, I dont know. If they went to a big commercial store
like Nike, where they are using pixao to sell their product, I would definitely
understand.15 But that gallery, made by people just like you and me, in their
mind [the pixadores] they think its just people using graffiti to make money, but
its just people that are helping young artists, people that want to live through
painting. None of us want to work with the big commercial galleries. We dont
want to sell our work to big companies. This is a place for people like us, that
just want to have a different life than the typical nine-to-five. And it doesnt
make sense to me to try hard to be a true and original pixador or graffiti writer
and then work every day in a factory! We need places like Choque that help find
projects so you can make a living with painting. It just doesnt make any sense
to fuck these guys [the Choque Gallery]. They are not like the big art rich guy,
theyre not using pixao to make money [] Ive been painting like this for
years, in the street, for free, no money, painting graffiti, painting public art, all
for free. Even when I work with the galleries I would never just paint my street
work on a canvas and sell it, it makes no sense to me. I always change my work
when its inside, and I always try to have that link with the outside. But with this
[the pixadores issue] I couldnt talk directly with anyone, I tried, they sent me
14
some messages on my website, but they were all anonymous, they left no emails.
I was replying okay, give me your email, lets talk, I can explain to you what Im
doing, it looks like you dont understand anything, but they never replied, and
that lack of dialogue was maybe the most difficult thing for me (12/07/09).
Yet just as these models can serve as institutional reflections of Consensual and
Agonistic Ornamentation (and their trenchant critiques of each other thus equally
resonating back onto these insurgent discourses), the existence of the ornamental
practices discussed here outside of the space of the white cube (in comparison to
the models presented by Kester, Bourriaud and Bishop), their existence away from
the institutionalized control of publicly funded site-specific art (in terms of the sitespecific art discussed by Kwon), can be seen to embed both of these ornamental
practices more deeply within the public sphere as a whole,17 to embedded them
within the quotidian space of the mudlevel. Thus, whilst acknowledging the
critique of public art that Miwon Kwon (2004) has famously outlined a critique
of a site-specific art that has been uncritically adopted, that has been embraced
as an automatic signifier of criticality or progressivity by artists, architects,
dealers, curators, critics (ibid.: 1), a public art that comes to be simply a means to
extract the social and historical dimensions out of places to variously serve the
thematic drive of an artist, satisfy institutional demographic profiles, or fulfill the
fiscal needs of a city (ibid.: 53) I would suggest that through emerging under
the radar of authorization, through eluding the power of the arts administrators
and funding organizations Kwon discusses (ibid.: 1), these ornamental, insurgent
practices here described can serve to similarly elude many of the key pitfalls of
site-specificity she points out. The co-option and domestication of much publicart can thus be understood, as Kwon herself argues, to be more often the result
of institutional intervention and pressure than individual malpractice, the
habitually reductive and equalizing association drawn between an artist and
a community group a reductive association as epitomized by Fosters artist
as ethnographer and an equalizing one exemplified by Kesters community
delegate hence not always the work of a self-aggrandizing, pseudo-altruistic
artist but rather a fashioning of the artist by institutional forces (ibid.: 140).
It is thus a curatorial and institutional delimitation which often reduces and
sometimes stereotypes, the identities of the artist and the community group
(ibid.: 141), an institutional delimitation that the inherently informal, deeply
vernacular, non-institutional art discussed here can escape from.
Agonistic and Consensual Ornamentation can thus be understood as practices
which are set within a quite distinct opposition to one another, practices that may
function through similar processes of application, that may function in similar
sites and take similar risks, yet ones that emerge through quite varying politicoaesthetic frameworks. Yet now that these variances have been outlined, we need
move from image to performance, from artefact to ritual, ornament to order.
17
Whilst Kwon argues (1998) that all art, whether in a museum, a gallery, or a
public street is art in the public realm the street must be seen as inherently more
accessible than any institutional arena. I am not attempting to set in place a base
dichotomy of street = good / museum = bad; of course, an interior space is merely
another site to work within, another space from which to provoke, to question. I am
merely suggesting that this innately public, insurgent visual form cannot be avoided
or evaded as museum or gallery art can.
Agonistic Ornamentation
129
PART II
Order
4
Order
The ritual act, this is to say, does something, it is an action that is meant
to affect the world and it is likely to do so. To act in a drama, in contrast, is
not to take an action affecting the world, but only to imitate doing so.
Roy Rappaport
The contexts in which ritual practices unfold are not like the props
of painted scenery on a theatrical stage. Ritual action involves an
inextricable interaction with its immediate world, often drawing
it into the very activity of the rite in multiple ways.
Catherine Bell
Moore and Myerhoff, in their edited text Secular Ritual (1977), attempted to more
thoroughly delineate these eponymous terms. As they argue, if sacred is understood in
the sense of unquestionable and traditionalizing, then something may be sacred, yet not
religious (ibid.: 20). Bruce Kapferer similarly claimed (within the same volume) that the
sacred/profane dichotomy is often so fused in the manipulation of symbolic object[s] and
symbolic action that they become confused and difficult to distinguish (Kapferer 1977:
116). Notions of sacrality will hence be seen to be not only implicitly contextual, but also
An Initial Lexicon
As this vignette, I hope, comes to intimate, the furtive performances that were
so often undertaken in the production of these ornaments were highly ritualized
undertakings, ones immersed in a strongly ceremonial, deeply prescribed, intensely
sacred atmosphere. Whether consensual or agonistic (and whilst these different
approaches did, as we will see, provide different types of events) I will argue in this
chapter that all these acts, all these practices worked through the archetypal ritual
fields of action as understood anthropologically. Yet if I am attempting to frame
these various ornamental practices in this way, to place these singular and plural
moments of painting, sculpting, scratching away at the body of the city within the
realm of rites, I need first, of course, come to explain exactly what I understand
as the term ritual itself. As a word that has been employed by various different
scholars in quite variable and differing ways, a term much like the previously
discussed graffiti and street-art which is as over as it is underdetermined, I must
clarify what this very label means before I start making such sweeping claims.
not the exclusive site of the magico-religious; not only are technology and magic, for us,
as Alfred Gell has argued (1988), one and the same (ibid.: 9) but magico-religious actions,
as Bourdieu suggested, more often simply matters of practice (TMS Evens 2009: 119).
Order
135
4.2 Spok at
work. Madrid,
Spain, 2008
placement, who would go-over whom and where. [They were painting the walls by the side of
the tracks (track-sides as they were called in the not too difficult to gather vernacular), and, as
was the case in Madrid, every trackside within miles of the centre (literally miles in any direction)
was covered end-to-end in graffiti. Naturally, therefore, one would be forced to paint on top of
another graffiti-writers previous work a potentially precarious act for an inexperienced writer
who was not yet respected, but a fairly habitual act for the writers whom I was with]. Once
organized and the sites of practice preliminarily marked out (by a line incised with the edge
of a can), the four took their positions and set to work almost immediately, placing down their
bags, selecting their cans and then proceeding to outline their pieces. The first burst of noise
from the normally innocuous sounding spraycans seemed incredibly loud, piercing the hushed
air with its crisp, penetrating resonance. I had never before considered how shrill the sprays
actually were (like white-noise exploding from a detuned radio-alarm clock), every shake of the
can penetrating the stillness that otherwise enveloped us.
I shuffled around behind them as they continued to paint, looking for a good shot, trying to find a
makeshift tripod having foolishly failed to bring mine with. Without being able to use a flash and
with the painting progressing in near total darkness (solely by the light of the bordering streetlamps), I crept over the ballast with care, not wanting to disturb the feeling of intensity exuding
from the collective work. Each of them were now in full flow, the paint emanating from the flow
of their bodies, smooth, swift movements followed by an occasional pause, squatting down by
their collection of cans guessing at their colours, squinting to try and make them out, going with
the instinct developed from a hundred other nights just like this. There seemed to be a fairly set
routine they were all generally following, starting by outlining the core structure, the perspective,
the fill-in, shadows, key-lines, the piece slowly building up, the assorted parts coming together
to suddenly reveal the unexpected whole. While there was an intense communal concentration
formed through the transfixion with ones own piece, within the rhythm, the seams of the letter
forms, there was also quite clearly a further preoccupation with the spatial surroundings as a
whole, each of the practitioners alert, sensitive to the point of clairvoyance towards any unfamiliar,
foreign sound, any indication of potential danger. And thus, at 10, maybe 15-minute intervals, an
abrupt internal whistle1 would ring out, a hand in the air denoting silence, 30 seconds of total
quietude, every sinew straining for sound then the sharp hiss of the spraycans would again
reignite, the air filling with their unmistakeable, saccharine aroma.
1
They all used this particularly marked whistle, made by sucking air into their mouths rather than
blowing out. It had a remarkable effect, able both to cut through the densest cacophony and to be used at
Order
137
4.3 Spok at
work. Madrid,
Spain, 2008
Around 40 minutes in (time, to be honest, being particularly hard to gauge), I managed, once
again, to trip over an empty can at the side of the tracks, still searching in vain for the perfect
image. Spok came over to me with a slightly pained expression on his face. Mira, he murmured.
Three exits only [pointing at the steps crawling up the poles of the overhead wires at our left,
our right and our centre], and five of us. He paused. Be ready. Because were ready to go at
any time. This isnt the city centre ok? They guard the tracks here. And we dont wait around to
chat to them como 3TT y Remed2 Whether or not he was being a touch dramatic seemed
irrelevant. Whether just trying to keep me vigilant, ready to run, or attempting to explain
something more significant, the tension in the air was irrefutable. All of the guys were in a
heightened, adrenalin-fuelled state, ready to move whenever necessary. [Undoubtedly, now
thinking back, I think Spok was making a point, he was trying to make me not just see the
differences between the afternoon evening events, but feel them, to make me embrace the
uncertainty that was so palpable. At the time, however, he just made me nervous. But of course
it was a form of anxiety which, as Spok had often emphasized, had its obvious pleasures]. He
walked back to his piece, getting right up to the surface and then leaning his body back from
it, cocking his head to take it all in, working with his customarily balanced, fluid movements;
as he proceeded to execute the final highlights (his favourite part of the practice, bringing the
letters to life he used to say), his hand and the can seemed almost one and the same, a bodily
technique so oft repeated that the vehicle seemed almost inseparable from the operator.
Soon after the task was almost complete, each of the guys starting to settle back from their
pieces, gather up their tools and converge together about 20 feet from the wall. A brief appraisal
and they were ready to go, no lingering around for a moment more than necessary. Four classic
graffiti pieces had been produced, multi-coloured, multi-dimensional, multi-layered four or
five letter monikers, all working within different styles and designs, each working within a
set tradition yet attempting to constantly mould and shape that convention. Four artefacts
working within a particular mode of rhythmic formality yet demanding, necessitating a mode
of performative improvisation, four artefacts following the regulations of their discourse
acutely muted levels. It was also a style used by many of the graffiti artists in the city. You could pick them out
on the street from this single acoustic attribute, this single bodily act, a sound of imminent illicit activity.
2
Spok and I had earlier been with Louis and Remed as theyd been painting illegally in the city during
daylight hours and, customarily, had entered into a debate with the police over the acceptability of their
actions.
while, communicating innumerable things the physical status of the artist, of their wider
environment, the presence of others, a questioning of public space itself I grabbed a couple
of final snaps with the flash on my camera at last, all of us then climbing back up and over the
fence (infinitely easier exiting than entering). As soon as we were on the other side I felt the
mood manifestly alter, the guys now beginning to relax, to joke around, smiles I had never seen
on the faces of these writers now starting to emerge; I had initially felt they were acting aloof
(me being unknown to two of the four), but it now seemed this had nothing to do with it. It
was the event itself that led to this perceived detachment, its basic protocols necessitating a
total absorption in the moment, a total immersion, almost meditation within the flow. It was
an utter contrast to just a few minutes earlier; the mission now complete they could lighten up,
laugh, exit the frame. We walked back up to the station, Spok catching a few quick throw-ups
on the walls as we went, the group of us finally entering a 24-hour caf up by the station for
a quick caa and a couple of bocatas to end the night. Drinks and food finished, emails were
exchanged, promises of forwarding photos made. I shook hands with the new guys, hugs with
Spok, arranging to meet him at the studio the next day []
[On reflection, this was the night that I really came to terms with the procedural formality of the
ornamental process, the specific forms of clothing, language, bodily techniques, which were all
crucial to the completion of these aesthetic acts. Not only was this moment a symptomatic example
of a practice that nearly always took place within a group setting, within a specifically egalitarian
setting, it was something that involved an overt commitment to risk, to a heightened sensation
garnered through a test of ones aesthetic/athletic abilities. It was thus a defined bodily practice
in two senses, not only through the production of the image, but also through the awareness and
spatial sensitivities which were required during the entire period, from meeting to departure. It was
also a night that made me start to think more about the notion of creativity. While working within a
set discourse, one whose boundaries were so highly regulated, what room for experiment was there,
how much space lay within the margins?]
Of those who have attempted to pin down the precise meaning of the term
ritual, the late Roy Rappaport possibly stands as the theorist who has most lucidly
unpacked the entangled meanings set within it. For him, ritual was humanitys
basic social act (Rappaport 1999: 107), a site within which logic becomes
enacted and embodied is realised in unique ways (ibid.: 3). Coming to define it
through the underlying concepts of performance, formality, invariance, inclusion
of both acts and utterances, and encoding by other than the performers (ibid.:
24), Rappaport suggested that, when used collectively, a ritual state could then
give rise to a multitude of outcomes, engendering the possibility of an
establishment of convention, the sealing of social contract, the construction of the
integrated conventional orders [] the investment of whatever it encodes with
morality, the construction of time and eternity; the representation of a paradigm
of creation, the generation of the concept of the sacred and the sanctification
of conventional order, the generation of theories of the occult, the evocation of
numinous experience, the awareness of the divine, the grasp of the holy, and the
construction of orders of meaning transcending the semantic (ibid.: 27).
Ritual was thus understood as something that could, in a trivial sense, have
both social and material consequences, consequences that may or may not be
functional (ibid.: 27). It was something that contained a number of stipulated
attributes, then, sensible features common to rituals always and everywhere,
Order
139
features that (crucial for this work), may in fact, lead us to recognise events as rituals
in the first place (ibid.: 26), yet these aspects could never be thought as inimitable
to what he understood as ritual itself. What Rappaport was at pains to insist was
that, more than anything, ritual was simply a category of action (ibid.: 26). People,
objects and places could thus become sanctified or legitimated through various
rites and ceremonies, yet in itself, ritual had no singular, distinctive trait. It was
hence, and perhaps perplexingly, considered to be a unique structure, although
none of its elements performance, invariance, formality and so on belongs to it
alone (ibid.: 26), a practice that was on the boundary, whose very definition could
make it disappear as a conceptual category itself.
This potentially vexing point, its innately overlapping, polythetic condition
(Needham 1975), was taken up further by the theorist of religion Catherine Bell in her
seminal text Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (1997), a text in which she critically
examined the various changes and paradigms formulated within the study of rites
over its (relatively) short intellectual history. In her estimation, however (seemingly
following Jack Goodys adage, [r]ituals, more rituals, yet more rituals [] there is
little to be gained either from the term itself or from further subdivision [Goody
1977: 26]), the very idiom had become an almost futile label, a marker that could
ostensibly fluctuate in almost every feature; there could thus, in her mind, not only
be no intrinsic or universal understanding of what constitutes ritual (Bell 1997: 164),
but very few cultures were even understood to have had a term for ritual that means
exactly what is meant by the English word (ibid.: 164). While still outlining what she
argued to be the six prototypical archetypes of communal, traditional rites (these
being rites of passages, calendrical and commemorative rites, rites of exchange
and communion, rites of affliction, rites of feasting, fasting and festivals, and finally
political rituals [ibid.: 94]), Bell, in a similar move to that made by Rappaport, thus
sought to move the terms of reference away from ritual and towards ritualization,
to what she saw as flexible and strategic ways of acting rather than specific acts
in themselves (ibid.: 138). This adaptation of idiom enabled her to explore ritual in
terms of its concrete practice, as a way of acting that distinguishes itself from other
ways of acting (ibid.: 81), a practice that sets itself aside from the norm, detaching
itself from the quotidian, rather than merely attempting to further demarcate a
now seemingly nebulous term. It was thus a focus less on the matter of clear and
autonomous rites and more on the various methods, traditions and strategies of
ritualization that Bell wished to uphold, a focus on the body moving about within
a specially constructed space, a body at the same time defining (imposing) and
experiencing (receiving) the values ordering the environment (ibid.: 812). Moving
away from universal, overly generic themes, with ritual as an overall concept, and
toward the specific, calculated modes of action that gained significance through
the delineation of specific physical, spatial and temporal procedures, Bell thus also
sketched some key modes of ritual-like action, an initial lexicon encompassing
the themes of formalism, traditionalism, disciplined invariance, rule-governance,
sacral symbolism and performance (ibid.: 138), a lexicon slightly modifying but in
practice mainly concurring with Rappaports ritual requisites (traditionalism acting
as a simple alternate for encoding by other than the performers, sacral symbolism
4.4Formal,
traditional, yet
unique. Untitled
collage by
Momo, 2009
more-or-less approximating acts and utterances,2 and the sole addition of rulegovernance moulding into Rappaports invariance).
Formalism, to start off with, one of the most frequently cited characteristics of
ritual (ibid.: 138), was understood by both Bell and Rappaport as a method of setting
up a distinct contrast with unceremonious, quotidian, casual activities. Through a
sliding scale of procedurally organized movement (from excessively technical to
moderately so), it was believed to set up a division between the ordinary and the
extraordinary, the usual and unusual, typical and atypical, formulating a mode of
behaviour that had an implicit structure. Practices undertaken would thus often
tender a more restricted mode of communication than normally observed in
everyday interaction (a constraint examined in depth on pp. 2036 through the
work of Maurice Bloch), the limits or curbs placed upon how something can be
expressed understood to simultaneously influence what can be expressed as well
(ibid.: 139). Yet these apparent restrictions could also be argued to allow a more
intense performative meaning to emerge, one where understated deviation, rather
than radical innovation, was grasped in a more discriminating way by the sensitive
ear of the participants. While often taken to simply denote adherence to form, then,
for Rappaport, formalism must quite crucially not be taken to inevitably signify any
notion of restraint or politesse; the greeting behavior of teenagers, he warns, is formal
in that it is stereotyped, but it is not particularly decorous (Rappaport 1999: 33).
2
Rappaport, unlike Bell, consciously shirked from the usage of the term
symbol: That ritual is not entirely symbolic is one of its most interesting and
important characteristics, for through ritual some of the embarrassments of symbolic
communication (notably the two vices of language, lie and the confusions of Babel)
may be ameliorated (Rappaport 1999: 26).
Order
141
4.5Invariant,
rule governed,
yet distinct.
Untitled collage
by Momo, 2009
Ritual formality could thus often subsume or even specify, comic, violent, obscene
or blasphemous behavior (ibid.: 33), behaviour of an apparently transgressive
modality, all the while retaining a strictly ceremonious, expressive characteristic.
Traditionalism, the attempt to make a set of activities appear to be identical to
or thoroughly consistent with older cultural precedents (Bell 1997: 145), functions
through a bond to a set historical discourse, an apparently unbroken lineage
making each ritual element part of a wider whole. Actions undertaken were thus
understood to be not entirely encoded by the participants themselves, but to be
part of an adhered-to set of passed-down messages or techniques, procedures
of course liable, as we will see, to potential manipulation and modification.
Any deliberate or calculated invention of ritual was hence seen to be a rarity
(Rappaport 1999: 32). Even while the invention of tradition was a trait understood,
as Hobsbawm and Ranger famously explained (1983), to be widespread within the
modern era, these were sets of practices that sought to inculcate certain values
and norms implying a direct continuity with the past (ibid.: 1), even if this was in
fact a highly constructed, romanticized past. While often seen to be the preserve
of primitive societies, then, societies naturally at odds with modernity (Bell 1987:
138), the manifestation of traditional ritual (as detailed by Mary Douglas (1966) in
her renowned grid/group schema), can be attributed more to the basic principles
of social organization (the importance of group allegiance and hierarchical roles,
for example), than to any primordial belief system (ibid.: 99); movements away
from tradition can thus be understood to be prevalent as much in primitive as in
modern societies, the Mbuti Pygmies as studied by Turnbull acting as the classic
example of a seemingly primitive group with a highly modern, aritual sensibility,
a religion based on internal feeling, not external sign (Douglas 1996 [1973]: 14).
Order
143
3
Howe (2000) critiques this view, however, by noting the unpredictability of
some rituals, their ability, like games, to finish with winners and losers (ibid.: 76).
4
The recently reported incidents (and consequent furore) of the defamation of
war monuments in the UK by drunken (and urinating) youths serve as an illustration of
the evident sacrality bestowed upon these ostensibly secular sites.
5
Speaking roughly, Rappaport argues, the distinction between analogic and
digital is that between measuring and counting, the former referring to entities and
processes in which values can change through continuous imperceptible graduations
in, for instance, temperature, distance, velocity, influence, maturation, mood, prestige
and worthiness, the latter referring to entities or processes whose values change not
through continuous infinitesimal graduations but by discontinuous leaps, such as the
beating of the heart and changes in the size of animal populations (Rappaport 1999:
87). Ritual is thus understood to work digitally through its material representation
(ibid.: 88). Prestige or influence, transmitted through such ritual indices as pigs, coppers
and blankets, which help to define make definite important but vague aspects
about the world (ibid.: 87), are hence accounted for by material, not solely linguistic
properties. Ritual can of course contain analogic processes as well, but these are often
overridden or suppressed by their digital ones (ibid.: 140).
The final, and perhaps most important of Bell and Rappaports ritual stipulates,
performance, acts as the overall framework within which all the other categories of
ritualization can ensue; it is hence the most evidential and vital of rituals features.
Working on a multi-sensorial stage, it is understood to function through the ritual
participant not simply being told or shown something so much as being led to
experience, a participatory, corporeal knowledge understood to shape ones
understanding of the world (Bell 1997: 160). Without performance, as Rappaport
conclusively asserts, there simply is no ritual (Rappaport 1999: 37). Whether of an
ephemeral or enduring kind, elaborate or austere, whether it is conducted on an
individual or communal basis, the rite must be performed. Descriptions of ritual,
no matter how detailed, no matter how intricate, are not in themselves ritual acts.
And any performance must therefore be grasped primarily, as Edward L. Schieffelin
noted (2005), as a living event, an event that when over is forever gone (ibid.: 81);
there may be another similar performance tomorrow if it doesnt rain, but that
is another performance (ibid.: 81), each act, through its latent. 153), having the
possibility of a multitude of meanings. Rituals are thus realized made into res
only by being performed (Rappaport 1999: 37), and the unique, active undertaking
of each individual rite, the very manner of saying or doing understood to
be intrinsic to what is being said and done (ibid.: 38). Whilst performance is
links ritual to the world of theatrical presentation and classical drama, then, the
deliberate self-conscious doing of highly symbolic actions in public (Bell 1997:
160), for Rappaport (1999) this connection must be seen as familial rather than
integral. Although both forms of exposition reflect upon a notion of wider order,
ritual, unlike drama, not only represents action, but creates and fulfils it. It works
directly within the Austinian realm of the illocutionary, of explicit doing, rather
than solely communicating (ibid.: 86).
Ritualized behaviour can thus be seen as a practice which works within a sliding
scale of formalism (from unstructured to structured), yet one always marked out
by a manner of differentiation; to refer to an enduring tradition, or, at least very
least, appealing to discourse that goes beyond the lives of the ritual practitioners
themselves; to function within a seemingly repetitive, invariant framework, within
what could be described as a mania for a non-instrumental precision; to operate
amidst a system of rules and regulations, an arrangement of play as an inversion
or potential subversion of everyday social life; to be produced in order to be seen,
to work through both innately affective or expressive and intrinsically analytic
or communicative symbols; and to employ a multidimensional, performative
framework, one in which all members participate in the proceedings, whether
through practice or spectatorship.
Order
147
be revealed, without which style, structure, order would be entirely absent. Both
of the ornamental practices described in the previous chapters thus worked, first
and foremost, through contrasting themselves to those of the everyday, creating
a set of formal characteristics, a formality of stereotyped elements (Rappaport
1999: 33), that designated them as something different, something unique, their
performative routines separated from quotidian habits. Primarily, and quite
unmistakably, one is not supposed to draw, write, paint, modify, install, or scratch
upon public surfaces. There are not only implicit, but also clearly prescribed
social contracts proscribing these acts edicts working through all of our key
social institutions, through the family,6 the education system,7 the judiciary8
quite recent social contracts in fact (as shown through the work of Juliet Fleming
[2001]), whose violation immediately sets the actions off in contrast to informal,
commonplace ones (from commercial advertising to institutionally acceptable
public-art). The very medium of production, the spatial location of these acts, thus
places these acts as something special, something framed, something denoting
this is ritual (Bateson 2000 [1972]: 182). And just as ritual (and of course ritual
transgression) has been shown to work within varying degrees of formality, so
these violent, obscene (Rappaport 1999: 33), taboo-breaking ornaments can be
seen to function in the self-same variable way, levels of convention, detachment
and heightened physical elaboration fluctuating between exceptional and
moderate formality. At the furthest end of this scale, during a painting mission
for example (such as described in Intersection I), the practice would most often
occur within a bounded location (outside the space of the everyday within a
train yard or aside a train track, a building site, a rooftop, or simply any other
surplus, backstage locale [Goffman 1959]); conduct and deportment would
be overtly discriminating (movements being highly measured in terms of both
the precise medium being worked upon, but also the wider landscape, each
ritual actor constantly on the look-out for potential danger, authoritarian or
otherwise); activity would generally take place nocturnally (a liminal time in
which the world of work is seen to lose its hold [OConnor and Wynne 1996: 162]);
clothing would be regulated (muted colours the norm); verbal communication
kept to a minimum unless otherwise necessary (silence thus reigning apart
from various cautionary colloquialisms9). Tension was thus heightened,
actions highly regulated, and there were thus innumerable indiscretions one
could make, many things one (as an ethnographer in particular) could trip up
on literally, such as the disused can discussed previously, or metaphorically,
6
4.8Nano4814,
Alone, and Brk
at work. Vigo,
Spain, 2009
Order
149
It is really hard to overestimate how important the books Subway Art and
Spraycan Art have been to the progression of graffiti culture. On one occasion, Sixe, in
reference to the almost ridiculously elevated veneration of Subway Art and the authors
Chalfant and Cooper in particular (the lionized progenitors of the liturgy but not the
practice), satirically stated Jesus, Cooper y Chalfant, rather than the customary Jesus,
Maria, y Jos after someone sneezed. This was by no means a critique of these authors
who were held in the upmost respect, but simply a commentary on the encompassing
traditionalism that he and his fellow practitioners worked within, the sacred status not
only of the individual pieces within these books (which were treated as hallowed) but
so too the saintly status of the producers of the bible themselves.
4.10 Invariant yet idiosyncratic 1. Katsu, Untitled, New York, USA, 2012
4.11Invariant
yet idiosyncratic 2.
Eltono, Untitled 1,
Untitled 2, Beijing,
China, 2012
Order
153
11
Ive done a thousand pieces, ten thousand tags he once told me, and they
might have a similar style but theyre never the same. Its impossible for me to even
catch two tags the same. Whilst to my eye they may have looked identical, the trained
practitioner could see the infinitesimal differences that the hand must always make.
12
All of the ornamental forms discussed contained both self-referential and
canonical information, aspects through which, in the former case, you could re-trace
its physical production, analysing the particular physical, psychic or social states of
individual participants (Rappaport 1999: 53), while, in the latter, grasping its more
general, universal meanings. The differing aspects were not merely two sorts of
information, however, but part of a complex in which the two classes of messages are
dependent upon each other (ibid.: 58).
4.14 3TTMan, Remed, and Fefe Tavelera at work. Madrid, Spain, 2009
But of course, this sacrality, as with all of the other five themes so far discussed,
could only ever function through the all-pervading jurisdiction of performance,
bringing these ornamental artefacts back to the world of exposition.
Public performance was a fundamental constituent of my informants very
outward, prominent, ornamental displays. They were acts which converged
directly with Richard Baumans definition of performance (1992a), a display which
is aesthetically marked and heightened and also framed in a special way, a
practice which acts both as a mode of communicative behaviour and a type of
communicative event (ibid.: 41). Not only literally marking their medium through
aesthetic means, forming an event filled with colour, tension, movement, not
only literally producing a frame, a parergon, an event attached yet separate to
the everyday, these ornamental forms communicated in literal and performative
modalities. Performances were thus not only distinct, individual productions,
ones working within particular aesthetic genres, but also expressive, discursive
procedures, public ritualizations that yearned for intersubjective responses. They
were ones in which both actors and audience could be mutually affected, in which
both had their specific tasks and roles, where both were vital to the final efficacy of
the ritual. By simply viewing these forms (whether intentionally or not), recipients
would be drawn into these traps. They would be forced to recall the genesis of
the objects, to play out their origin-stories mentally, reconstructing their histories
as a sequence of actions performed by another agent (the artist) (Gell 1998: 67);
their very witnessing (as I have previously suggested in Schacter 2008) was thus
infused with a sense of corporeal illicitness, a visceral reaction provoked by the
congealed residue of performance and agency in object-form (Gell 1998: 68),
their viewing a recreation of the action through which they came into existence:
The performative process, functioning through multiple media, through multiple
sensory modalities comprising specific smells (the unmistakable paint fumes),
particular sounds (the shaking and hissing of the cans) and characteristic sights
(the burst of colour onto the wall); comprising specific bodily actions (the balletic
movements of hand to wall), particular risks (from both the precarity of the acts as
well as their institutional illegality) and characteristic times and locales (nocturnal,
liminal) was thus fully embedded within the image itself, fastened to its later
existence, ensuring not only that the participants experience the event intensively
and with heightened effect(Tambiah 1996: 222) but a profusion of variables through
which the work could then be understood within a wider, participatory, collective
context. Outsiders, as Gerd Baumann has discussed (1992b), can thus become
implicated in these ritual in a varying set of ways, the bystanders, spectators,
invited guests, competing participants, validating witnesses, or even beneficiaries
of these very public acts considered as fully active members of the process, the
viewer, the eraser, the neighbour, all having a role within the performative process,
the practice moving beyond the individual applicant and enlisting a wealth of
further claimants (ibid.: 110). In its movements, its presentations and its dramas, the
practice of ornamentation here discussed must be understood to be ensconced
within a performative framework realized in the moment of creation and yet still
extant within its transient material state, a performative essence resonating from
the moment of production to the moment of reception. It was an overarching
Order
159
performative context in which actions were not just illustrated but performed,
where experience emerged through corporeal knowledge, where it was through
deliberate, purposeful action that the ritual itself could emerge.
(Un)Civilizing Rituals
The physical practice which brought these insurgent ornaments into the world,
the material acts through which they became manifest, were thus ones which I
would argue were unmistakably linked to the realm of ritual, to a framework
of ritualization itself connected (as we will see in the upcoming chapters) to a
distinct notion of order. Through the embracement of a performative formality,
a set aesthetic tradition, a mode of performative invariance, an assemblage of
aesthetic regulations, a group of affective and communicative symbols, and an allencompassing performative modality, my informants produced a mode of secular
ritual (Moore and Myerhoff 1977), a set of what from the outside could appear
to be uncivilized rituals (in a corruption of Carol Duncans expression [1995]), but
rituals nonetheless. Rather than mindless vandalism, this was a practice enveloped
in history and tradition, one which took a long-standing education to perfect,
which contained ritual experts and neophytes, contained correct and incorrect
modes of action.16 And together it thus formed a mode of ritual in which public acts
of ornamentation what Tambiah (1995) would term as ritual saying could act
performatively in the Austinian sense acting as ritual doing, a process whereby the
structure of ritualization is existentially or indexically related to [its] participants, a
practice creating, affirming, or legitimating their social positions (ibid.: 156).
Whilst Mary Douglas (1966) famously argued that rituals of purity and impurity
create unity in experience (ibid.: 2), social boundaries coming to be protected
and preserved through the regulation of what was commonly considered as
pollution, within the ethnographic context here described group boundaries
were defined and group members unified through an avidity towards, not
an avoidance of pollution, rites purposefully producing what was commonly
considered as dirt, purposefully forming the famous matter out of place (ibid.: 36).
Social boundaries were hence regulated through the contravention, rather than
protection of physical boundaries, through rituals of pollution, the network of
adherents explicitly demarcated through the violation of the normative taboo
16
As noted on the website Hurt You Bad, one of the most witty and at the same
time perspicuous graffiti related websites: Some things that were/will be asked of you:
Have style. Learn history. Be respectful. Paint subway trains. Bomb. Rack. Travel. Dont
snitch. Handle beef. Write for 10+ years. If one wanted to become a (ritual) expert, these
were the steps that had to be undertaken. One needed to embrace a unique technique
(Have style), to be steeped in tradition (Learn history), to be mindful of all regulations
(Be respectful), to accept risk (Bomb. Rack), to remain steadfast to the subculture
(Dont snitch. Handle Beef. Write for 10+ years), if one ever wanted to be accepted as a
true member of the wider network of practitioners.
17
Eltono related this to me quite clearly, the true connection within the group
being, in his opinion, instantiated through their joint adherence to working in the
street, their joint commitment to these rituals of pollution.
5
Inversion, Subversion, Perversion
[M]asks, disguises and other fictions of some kinds of play are devices
to make visible what has been hidden, even unconscious [] to let
the mysteries revel in the streets, to invert the everyday order in such
a way that it is the unconscious and primary processes that are visible,
whereas the conscious ego is restricted to creating rules to keep their
insurgence within bounds, to frame them or channel them.
Victor Turner
Because of their obvious sensuous character and their strong element of play,
carnival images closely resemble certain artistic forms, namely the spectacle.
In turn, the medieval spectacles often tended toward carnival folk culture,
the culture of the marketplace, and to a certain extent became one of its
components. But the basic carnival nucleus of this culture is by no means a
purely artistic form not a spectacle and does not, generally speaking, belong
to the sphere of art. It belongs to the borderline between art and life. In
reality, it is life itself, but shaped according to a certain pattern of play.
Mikhail Bakhtin
Reaffirmation/Revolution:
Now that my informants public aesthetic practices have been shown to function
within the elements which together comprise what is generally understood as
ritual, it is the overarching ritual framework, the specific ritual archetype these
acts lay within which I wish to come to explore. This, I hope, will then help us
understand why my informants pursue these often dangerous practices, it will
help us to identify what their enacting truly comes to achieve. Following what
Catherine Bell (1997) has termed rites of feasting, fasting, and festivals, and, in
5.13TTMan,
Fighting Peacefully,
Tenerife,
Spain, 2012
particular, the subcategory of carnival1 which lays within this ritual schemata,
the ornamental rituals which have thus far been examined will now come to
be explored as ones in which participants are particularly concerned to express
publicly to themselves, each other, and sometimes outsiders their commitment
and adherence to basic religious [or any other binding] values (ibid.: 120), in which
participants utilize what may appear to be forms of social chaos and licentious play
(ibid.: 126) in order to publicly express their beliefs. Surveying some of the classic
examinations of the carnival rite then a public ritual not only encompassing a
myriad of aesthetic standards such as spectacle, transgression, humour, excess,
play, risk and creativity, but also being one of what John Kelly and Martha Kaplan
termed the three most important anthropological images of ritual2 (Kelly and
Kaplan 1990: 121) we will find a practice which functions through a disruptive
modality yet which can simultaneously, in the terms of Edward Muir (2005), be
considered as a distinctly civic ritual. Carnival will thus be understood as a space
within which social actors could gain access to forms of taboo breaking, to spaces
where one could turn the usual values of normal life upside down (ibid.: 1045), yet
at the same time as a state that can perpetuate certain values of the community
(ibid.: 100), where one could challenge authority through creative experimentation
and through the exertion of a particular moral conviction. Where public authorities
1
Carnival, as understood here following Peter Stallybrass and Allon White (1986),
will be seen as a discourse able to reveal itself as much within particular symbolic
practices, images and discourses as within the specific calendrical ritual occurring around
February each year (ibid.: 15). It can be seen to function both as a public exhibition of
licentiousness a ritual spectacle and a lived-through, strategic, hybrid aesthetic
practice (Bakhtin 1984a: 4). Carnival will here be recognized as a space not only where
traditional hierarchies such as rich/poor or male/female can be set in confrontation, but
one in which polarities such as inside/outside or public/private can similarly be provoked.
2
The other two being the divine king and the cargo cult (Kelly and Kaplan
1990: 121).
163
may solely see criminal behaviour then, for carnival participants actions may be an
expression of deeply held beliefs (ibid.: 100). They may be a performance of virtue,
an act of probity, a public presentation which works through liberating rather than
destroying societal statutes (ibid.: 100). The upturning of normative systems can
thus serve to instantiate, rather than simply reject, a form of embodied citizenship,
a transgression which emerges from a will to order not a wilful chaos, from a desire
to question rather than overturn. And carnival and order can thus be seen to be
close companions rather than direct opponents, to be linked through their joint
adherence to the cosmetic (in the original sense of the term), linked through the
intertwined levels of cosmos.3
Just as carnivals overtly liminal structure seems to have the innate capacity
to disrupt everyday habitus however, many theorists have also ultimately come
to see it as having a regulatory function, a dogmatism working to fortify rather
than undermine social norms. Through working, as DaMatta writes (1991), in
direct opposition (as an inverted image) to daily life, carnival can be seen as
something which merely reinforces the everyday world (ibid.: 62), something
which follows the normative pattern of structure and thus simply upholds it.
It can be seen as a discourse of antithesis which vindicates its contrary form, a
practice creating a negative logic which functions through reaffirmation rather
than revolution (Handelman 1998: 52).4 Whilst some theorists see carnival as a
method of revivifying the social sphere, others thus argue that it merely reinforces
social norms, the former group appreciating the carnival modality as a method of
(subversive) rebellion, the latter seeing it as a discourse of (inversive) reflection.
It is a debate, then, which not only contains many similarities to that previously
analysed between Habermas and Lyotard (between a consensual modification of
norms and an agonistic displacement of them), but which can similarly be analysed
through the work of two other giants of social thought, through the work of the
anthropologist Victor Turner and the literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin on carnival.
Whilst for Turner, attempting to enhance Max Gluckmans work on rituals of
rebellion (1963), carnival was understood as something experimental, subjunctive,
3
Gottfried Semper in fact links carnival and cosmos through their etymological
joining in the cosmetic, an embellishment with which the Greek woman adorned
herself to make her body appear (Mahall and Serbest 2009: 40). For Semper, the
cosmetic provided the haze of carnival candles; it connected cosmetics to carnivals
dressing and masking and both to a method of inventing (ibid.: 40). Whilst masks are
thus often seen to conceal, here they more rightly re-order.
4
This argument is taken up even further by Nancy Scheper-Hughes (1993),
suggesting that carnival in Brazil is indeed as much a ritual of intensification as a ritual
of reversal (ibid.: 482), a practice accentuating rather than contesting everyday social
realities. For her, carnival was a time when people were only too aware of their own
exclusion, marginality, sickness, and debt, the play of carnival doing the dirty work
of class, gender, and sexual divisions, which by means of grotesque exaggeration are
etched even more deeply into the individual and collective bodies (ibid.: 482). Rather
than carnival transgressing social norms, rather than it simply reflecting them, ScheperHughes thus suggests it works to actually deepen them, these rituals of reversal being
themselves reversed (and all the more powerfully for that).
yet perhaps a not truly contestational realm, a Dionysian force acting as the
balance, not the challenge, to the Apollonian side of life (Kelly and Kaplan 1990:
137), for Bakhtin, whose outwardly historical work on carnival also functioned as
a subversive critique of the Stalinist era he lived through, carnival was a corrosive
parody emblematic of radical social transformation, a discourse that acted as both
the limit and opponent of official structure (ibid.: 137). So does the carnivalesque
play which we will find emerging from my informants practices simply give rise to a
Turnerian critique, a ritual of inversion, or a stronger Bakhtinian notion of creation,
a ritual of subversion? Do their aesthetic, seemingly transgressive practices stay
within the realm of structure, merely experimenting with it, or break away from
this self-same structure, attempting to eliminate it? And can, in the very first case,
these acts be considered rituals of the carnivalesque at all, to be practices which
function within the formerly mentioned rites of feasting, fasting, and festivals,
within the public display of religiocultural sentiments (Bell 1997: 120) that these
rites instantiate.
Intersection II: Field Notes, 12/06/07
[]We were sat in the kitchen at the studio. Eltono, 3TTMan, Luciano, Manu,1 Tika2 and myself
relaxing in el local3 after another blazing summers day, drinking, smoking, chatting, listening
to music just being together in the pleasing freshness of the night. It was nothing out of the
ordinary, a group of friends just hanging out, joking around, and it seemed things were settling
down for the evening. Yet at around midnight everyone suddenly arose from their chairs and
started making for the door, motioning me to come with them. I hadnt noticed any earlier talk
of arrangements (it was just a Tuesday night after all), and although I initially thought that work
on an impending show was due to start (a small exhibition taking place at an independent
gallery managed by friends of theirs a space, in fact, just round the corner from where we sat),
now didnt seem like an appropriate time to put that into action.
We filed out the kitchen Manu running back to quickly grab a couple of litros4 from the
fridge before we left, Luciano laughing and pushing 3TTMan along the corridor collectively
rambling downstairs and on to the street. My eyes adjusting to the orange sheen of the
Madrileo night, I saw Eltono walking a little way down the road, ending up outside la frutera,
standing meditatively amidst the remnants of the days trade. He bent down, carefully shifting
the black bags of rotting fruit, picking up a pile of 10 or so wooden fruit cartons (the typical
stackable crates that you find in every city of the world), loading them up, high over his head.
Still chatting, the rest of the team followed suit, picking up the boxes, carefully removing the
detritus and then progressing up the street, seemingly knowledgeable as to where we were
going.5 Moments after we were outside the gallery, Eltono, proceeding to lay his collection
Manu was Nanos primo, an unofficial cousin through strong family ties in Vigo. As well as being a
photographer he was at that time working as a lighting director for a local theatre.
Tika was a friend of Eltonos, an artist originally from Zurich but at that time living in So Paolo.
Theres something about the Spanish word local (meaning premises, place, workshop and local)
that was perfectly apt. I think its just the fact that it quite clearly took all four meanings at once.
The cartons were to be used as part of an installation Tono would later produce in the gallery
space. They were a common medium of his, always easy to find wherever he went, pretty cheap for what you
got (something for nothing) and always carrying a sign of their locality on their form. It was not meant as a
particular comment on recycling or environmental sustainability (although of course implicit in the material),
of cartons down on the curb, fished a huge set of keys out of his pocket and opened up the
doors. We all piled in, laying down the crates in the corner, taking a quick peek around and then
swiftly returning outside. Mission one complete; time for the first break. A litro was opened to
celebrate (woops from the crowd), a pass of the bottle about the circle, a customary swig for
everyone and we were off.6 Tika was bouncing down the street ahead of us, tagging every other
doorway with a thick black marker, Manu beside her cursively scanning the area for potential
danger while simultaneously pestering her for a go. 3TTMan and Eltono were lingering at
a nearby skip,7 searching within it then furtively grabbing some clear plastic sheeting from
inside; stealthily coming up on Luciano from behind, they managed to then wrap him up totally
within it, laughing and pointing at the newly mummified creature who lay within. The whole
group was marching down the middle of the road, shouting, hooting, enjoying the moment to
its utmost potential.
3TTMan was now leading the way, winding his way through Malasaa, navigating the narrow
backstreets that formed this densely packed neighbourhood.8 We emerged at the next stage
of action after a few minutes (and another swiftly consumed litro), a huge abandoned shopfront (maybe ten metres by three?) made up of literally hundreds of billposters, a densely
packed palimpsest almost 40 or 50 thick in places. It was a prime example of one of the most
pervasive forms of visual culture in the city, an illicit but seemingly hegemonically accepted
form of commercial advertising.9 Here is perfect, 3TTMan said, seemingly to himself, then stood
back, surveying the posters for a moment. Discarding his mangled roll-up he reached back and
pulled a Stanley knife out from his pocket, leaned up to the wall and started cutting, selecting
a fragment of text, an image, and swiftly detaching it from the surface in four or five sharp
movements. I looked down at the posters now lying submissively on the floor, turning back
to find 3TTMan really starting to get into it. Cutting soon became hacking, hacking turning
into ripping, ripping into a full-frontal assault on the posters, a no-holds-barred attack on the
felonious carteles. By the time I had reached for my camera the rest of the crew was helping
pulling, wrenching, tearing away at the posters, holding each other up high against them,
clinging to the uppermost sheets, forcing them off the wall in an orgy of destruction, an
ephemeral occurrence of (dis)order, a fleeting instance of (con)fusion in the city. Eltono and
Manu were jumping up and down on the posters on the floor, diving on top of them, suddenly
then dragging one another around the street while they lay prostrate like kings on these newly
created forms of transportation. Out of nowhere a passer-by joined in the mle, rugby-tackling
Eltono onto the posters and straight into 3TTMan and Manu (who were themselves now down
there play-fighting on the ground), speedily disappearing laughing into the night (followed by
both comical shouts and a theatrical waving of fists from the wounded soldiers). People were
more simply indicative of an approach to the utilization of the street by my informants in a more general way
finding things from the place you treasured, and simply reprocessing them within another context. It was
a way of bringing the city into the gallery space without simply replicating ones street production in what
was a very different context.
Like all resources, drinks were always shared amongst the group. Whether an expensive seven-
euro copa at a bar or, more habitually, a one-euro street-beer, drinks would be immediately passed after a
mouthful taken. This seemingly banal, quotidian act of group participation was something that undoubtedly
shone a light on the rest of the collectives activities. Common engagement, cooperative contribution was
simply a more effective way of being in the city.
Skips, which were plentiful in the city, were always given a quick once over. One never knew what
In fact, the entire area of Malasaa was made up of these backstreets, tiny roads with space
enough for one car and an almost redundant pavement on each side. This very redundancy meant that the
streets were actively shared, vehicles and citizens in a constant dance of interaction.
Billposters were in fact a seemingly semi-legal form of advertising in Madrid, and thus consumed
walking past, smiling, laughing (perhaps a touch uncertainly), not truly understanding what
was going on (much like myself in fact) but able to sense the intense joyfulness of the moment.
After every last obtainable scrap of paper was prized off the wall, 3TTMan piled together the
sheets and started leading the way back, dragging the posters along the road behind him with
us following at the rear [for some reason I remember thinking he seemed somewhat like the
Pied Piper of Hamelin, the posters a substitute for the pipe, us for the children of the town].
Mission two (nearly) complete; time for the second break. The posters were parked by the
side of the road and we darted into a bar for a free chupito (3TTMan having been promised
free drinks by the proprietor having recently painted the exterior facade of the venue). Down
the hatch, a five-minute dance and we were gone. And within a moment we were back at the
gallery, helping 3TTMan haul the posters inside. Someone grabbed a couple of chairs from
the outer courtyard and hauled them out to the narrow street at the front of the gallery. We
sat down, took a breath, and once more I thought the night was perhaps slowing back down,
drawing to a close. Little did I know. A loud whistle cut through the air and Spok appeared from
down the street, wandering down from his apartment on the opposite corner towing a small
roller bag behind him.
He broke into the circle, grabbing the litro, then knelt down and unzipped his bag, pouring out
an assortment of cans onto the curb. So what do you want me to paint? They laughed. He
stood there thinking, draining the cerveza, then laid it on the floor and got to work, peeling off
the old bits of paper and paint from the outside wall of the space, smoothing down its rough
surface with his hand. He took a quick picture of Luciano and Eltono on his phone-camera and
was set, ready to work, beginning to outline their portraits on the front of the building. Ive
been painting with sprays for eight years, said Ekta (who too had just arrived, direct from the
airport with a rucksack, a small holdall and a big smile), and I have no idea how hes doing that.
Its like were using totally different tools. They loved how he worked, the ease he could almost
photographically reproduce an image with his cans, without light, without planning, but Spok
was nonplussed. If youd painted as many pieces as I have he trailed off. Soon finished, he
moved across to the other side of the street and threw up a couple of quick tags, seeming
almost desperate to get them out, a tension released with their emanation on the wall. He
loved the freedom of tagging. The photorealism was great, he knew it was impressive, but it
was, as he said, just a trick. The joy of a tag, the immediacy. That was the best.
Eltono and Tika had moved just around the corner by this point, set up directly in between
the gallery and the studio. They had a nice spot (Id noticed them checking it out earlier in the
day), a building almost opposite Eltonos window, an old bar which had been sitting empty
for years, covered now in innumerable tags, stencils and throw-ups. They were sat at the edge
of the street, mixing their colours, chatting quietly between themselves. Things were getting
late, it must have been by now two, three in the morning, and everything felt calmer, quieter.
This wasnt the rabble-rousing excess of earlier but a more measured, more focussed approach.
Eltono was down on his knees taping out his design, marking out the negative space of his
image; Tika, having pulled herself up onto one of the ever-present dustbins (the always readily
available stepladder), setting out her background in white. Spok and 3TTMan had by now
come down from the gallery (having locked it up for the night) and were wandering back to the
studio, standing with me on the corner, watching the process while finishing the final litro of
the night. Quickly putting his knife and tape back into his back pocket, Eltono started walking
quickly away from his piece (which he had yet to start filling in), whistling towards us while
heading away from the studio and into the side-road. I stood their confused, while Spok and
3TTMan swiftly ushered Tika down from her spot, dashing the litro, a small bottle of rum, the
paint and some contraband behind the bin as they did. I was totally perplexed until the two
undercovers ordered us against the wall. I stood still, feeling taken aback. The possibility was of
course always there but it was something I had simply not been expecting. Flashing blue lights
then reflected off the wall and three vehicles pulled up, discharging 10 or so uniformed officers.
Manu had by now come over, assertively confronting the police while 3TTMan pleaded with
169
him to calm down. Empty your pockets and place them by your feet. ID cards face up. Manu
continued to berate them: slow night? Nothing better to do? They looked irritated, but also a
touch uncomfortable themselves, like theyd come to the wrong place at the right time [which,
according to the guys later, was probably the case]. They checked the cards, the collection of
materials on the floor, the quietude (apart from the still aggravated Manu) broken by the sound
of the principals radio. It looked like they had more important business to attend to. A couple
of stern sounding words (the meaning lost on me) and they departed, almost as quickly as
theyd materialized. It seemed somewhat farcical. Theyd neither taken the paints, the drink, nor
the contraband. It was a result. Back to the studio for an hour and Tika and Eltono crawled out
again. Never leave a job half-done []
[I think this was the night I first truly realized that the street was something that pervaded my
informants entire lifeworlds, something not solely connected to what was considered to be their
overtly aesthetic production. It was an understanding of the street in which transgression of the
norms of the city was a key aspect, a transgression not only pursued through a purely artistic process,
however, but one concerned with undertaking tasks in a way opposed to habitual conceptions of
public and private, dirt and pollution, order and disorder. And it was this particular disruption, this
disturbance of the everyday, one undertaken as a whole, as a collective, that made me realize the
importance of the realms of play, of risk, of a framework going far beyond the discourses of art and
vandalism, the bounded dichotomy to which it was so often related].
5.6 Society in the subjunctive. Nano4814, Liqen, Pelucas and Brk at work
5.7 Nano4814, Liqen, Pelucas and Brk, Untitled [detail], Madrid, Spain, 2009
173
It failed, as Raymond Firth suggested, to take note of the true agency of the social
actor, seeing action taking place through a preordained mental pressure, a force
placed upon individuals by codes of their society that they hold to be axiomatic
(Firth 1974, in Bornstein 2006: 97). Even as Turner came to transcend Gluckmans
catharsis thesis, then, seeing within carnival a depiction of the underlying conflicts
present within a group, there was, as Donald Weber has suggested (1995), an
ultimately ahistorical and apolitical lacuna within his work (ibid.: 530), a lacuna
failing to contest the deep-seated relations of power endemic within society. While
carnival was understood to enable the weak to curse and criticize then, to set limits
on the power of the strong to coerce and ordain (Turner 1979b: 105), its implicitly
consensual dimension suggested an inability of the weak to go beyond the limits of
the strong, an inability to contend with the disputative, charged political reality of
the everyday (Weber 1995: 530).5 And it was thus, ironically, the resistance towards
communitas that Turner somewhat perplexedly noted within Dramas, Fields, and
Metaphors, a resistance displayed by the marginals who somehow refuse[d] to join
the ritual consensus, which Weber sees to mark out a true encounter with identity
politics and the border, a resistance to the dominant culture formed through
a defiance towards the very framing of communitas itself (ibid.: 530). It was the
actors that came to resist incorporation, that resisted the darker, mechanistic
steering dimension residing in the processual model of incorporation, that were
5.8Lush, Untitled,
Melbourne, 2011
understood to demarcate a truly radical, truly liminal domain (ibid.: 531). Only,
as Don Handelman continues (1998), through the construction of a falsified
inversion, then, an inversion going beyond its pre-established structural limits,
could discourse ever come to be truly invalidated (ibid.: 52); only then could it
become no longer an inversion, but another phenomenon in its own right (ibid.:
53), a potency established when the carnival trope exceeds itself, when it breaks
its connectivity to the phenomenon it inverts (ibid.: 53).
175
was seen to have been undermined during the later Romantic period, joyful
laughter turning into cold humour, irony, sarcasm, the positive regenerating
power of the carnivalesque reduced to a minimum, turning fearlessness into
fear (Bakhtin 1984a: 389). The championing of impropriety that Bakhtin so
eulogized, the embracement of a folk cultural practice exposing the contradictory
and double-faced fullness of life, one acting as both a negation and destruction
[] inseparable from affirmation (ibid.: 62), came to be transformed from both
a popular and literary practice to one solely occurrent in a textually mediated
form, an auxiliary medium for the carnivalesque after its bodily form had been
emasculated, usurped by a legislative license. While traditional carnival had thus
become institutionalized, turned into mere parades, while its utopian character
oriented towards the future, was gradually transformed into a mere holiday
mood, its true spirit remained indestructible, continuing to fertilize various
areas of life and culture (ibid.: 334). This carnival spirit, this spirit attempting to
reveal the possibilities that lay beyond the visible horizon of official philosophy,
that attempted to dislocate meanings, superimpose new ideals, to find a
position permitting a look at the other side of established values (ibid.: 272), was
hence understood to be found not only in the zone of riots and revelry, of the
feast and the fair; for Bakhtin it could emerge in speech and images, the body
and literature, within areas that attempted to relentlessly relativize that which
represented itself as absolute and complete (Hall 1996: 297).
What was key for Bakhtin then was the conscious embracement of hybrid
constructions, the embracement of words or images, as Stan Mumford (1989)
explains in his rich, Bakhtinian analysis of the lamas and shamans of north central
Nepal, that were saturated with contested and unfinished meanings, words and
images left open to interpretation through their purposefully ambivalent nature
(ibid.: 29). Within this carnival underlayer, one could then dissolve the either/
or and assert both/and, one could erode the artificial barriers between artistic
styles and between self-enclosed systems of thought (ibid.: 21). The carnivalesque
strategy of demasking bifurcated and bounded images thus helped to keep
the potential for dialogue alive beneath the official monologue (ibid.: 21), a
potential that could burst forth through an explicit interillumination between
cultural voices (ibid.: 158). The language of carnival was thus understood to be
an intensely rich one, an idiom full of heteroglossia, parody, laughter, one able
to shift experience from a mundane to profound context, one able to displace
knowledge through the carving-out of a living image of another language (Bakhtin
1981: 361). And, akin to the parallel between Turners work and Habermass,
Bakhtins embracement of heteroglossia (or differentiated speech) can be seen
to correlate to Lyotards embracement of language games and petit-recits, the
carnival ideal being grasped to function as an instantiation of plurality which
promotes a narrative diversity, an aesthetic with a detotalizing, critical function
(Carroll 1993: 73). While master-narratives (whatever their political frameworks),
always attempted to limit, control, and repress any notion of difference (ibid.:
74), both Lyotard and Bakhtin could be seen to focus upon a plurality that no
single genre, metadiscourse, or master-game [could] encompass (ibid.: 80).
5.9Pelucas,
Serpiente escalera,
Mexico City,
Mexico, 2012
And like the Lyotardian figure, a realm surpassing, exceeding discourse, a form
unable to be rendered or translated into conventional language, the carnival spirit
was understood by Bakhtin (1984b) to induce a language that could not
be translated in any full or adequate way into verbal language, and much less
into a language of abstract concepts, but is amenable to a certain transposition
into a language of artistic images that has something in common with its
concretely sensuous nature; that is, it can be transposed into the language of
literature. We are calling this transposition of carnival into the language of
literature the carnivalization of literature (ibid.: 122).
177
The carnival rite (Bakhtin 1984a: 200) could hence refute the very jurisdiction of
dominant institutions, acting not simply as catharsis, as satire (a laughter that does
not laugh [ibid.: 45]), but instigating a complete exit from the present order (ibid.:
274); laughter not only revealed the unofficial, the clandestine and surreptitious, it
reveals a truth that rejects all truth, a potential without limits.6 And carnival could
therefore challenge norms through revealing laughter to be as important as truth,
as a method of confronting all truth from the position of the everyday, from the
realm of the marketplace, the low-culture displacing the power of the high.
Just like the critiques placed against Turners inversive theory of the carnival
however, Bakhtins focus on subversion has also been suggested to be one which
functions in a more equivocal manner, working not as a resistance to power,
but rather as an instrument and also a sign of power itself (Bristol 1993: 636).
The New Historicist theorist Stephen Greenblatt, in his celebrated essay Invisible
Bullets (2004 [1985]), thus argued that the production of subversion was the very
condition of power (ibid.: 455), order, as he continued, being neither possible nor
fully convincing without both the presence and perception of betrayal (ibid.: 450).
Demonstrated through a reading of Shakespeares Henry plays (Shakespeare, as
previously noted, viewed by Bakhtin as a primary exponent of the carnivalesque),
Greenblatt suggests that actions that one would have thought would have had the
effect of radically undermining authority turned out in fact to be the very props of
that authority (ibid.: 451). The inclusion of what were deemed to be destabilizing
elements within the hegemonic system simply meant that any true challenge to
prevalent power relations was precluded, made redundant through their already
apparent existence, these works functioning through both the production
and containment of subversion and disorder (ibid.: 443, emphasis added). The
subversiveness which is genuine and radical, which is sufficiently disturbing so
that to be suspected of such belief could lead to imprisonment or torture, was thus
at the same time contained by the power it would appear to threaten; in fact, it was
the very product of the power and furthers its ends (ibid.: 439). Social drama, like
the theatre itself, therefore had the power to be seemingly relentlessly subversive,
6
As Muir continues to sustain (1999), carnival cannot be seen to function in any single
way, either reinforcing or subverting authority, but can instead evoke multiple
meanings, meanings that depend on changing contexts and conditions (ibid.: 348).
It can be understood to be as much about contest and struggle as about power and
order, as much a powerful mode for reproducing the reality effect of the natural,
as a way to contest and even appropriate that reality itself (Dirks 1994: 5012).
Carnivals can hence start out as inversive practices and mould into subversive ones.
They can move, as Lucia Folena (1989) has shown, from serving to appropriate
and neutralize disorder (as revealed within the medieval and Renaissance
language of inversion [ibid.: 226]), to become synonymous with subversion
179
(as revealed within the language of carnival in the Jacobean era [ibid.: 226]) the
elite-serving, legitimizing, negative symmetrical rituals of rebellion which emerged
within the Elizabethan period latterly coming to be appropriated by the radical [and
truly subversive] discourse of Puritan revolution (ibid.: 226). As highly contingent,
idiosyncratic, conditional forms of social action then, rituals of the carnivalesque
must be examined in all their specific glory, the ethnographic reality of each instance
coming to define its potential turns to the left or the right. Yet before we can even
begin examining these peripatetic movements, to explore which way the rituals of
ornamentation discussed in this book themselves turn, I must first advance the status
of both Consensual and Agonistic Ornamentation within the rites of Feasting, Fasting
and Festivals that I previously mentioned (Bell 1997: 120), the ritual processes in
which there may be little overt testimony to the presence of deities but a great deal
of emphasis on the public display of religiocultural sentiments (ibid.: 120), in which
practices are intended to express publicly to the ritual practitioner, to their social
partners, to an amorphous public other an allegiance to the basic values of the
group from whence they emerge.
What I want to primarily make clear in this chapter then is that the production
of these ornaments acted both as a physical illustration and bodily instantiation of
the doctrines and creeds of the group with whom I was working. These were acts
which thus functioned not only as a visual depiction of a moral code, as a reflection
of morality, but were corporeal performances which underwrote these ethical
principles. Each marking must therefore be understood to emphasize my informants
5.10Neko,
Untitled [Los Veo y
Subo I See It and
I Get Up], Madrid,
Spain, 2009
belief in the transgressive utilization of public space; each image making known,
revealing their unremitting desire to play a part in the public sphere (to play in the
public sphere); each addition presenting their existential need to communicate with
the city (whether in its consensual or dissensual patterns). Performing in the public
was thus an ethical principal which could only be upheld through concrete action.
Ones dedication to the values of the group were made clear solely through ones
physical performances. Yet these were practices that acted transgressively as all
carnivalesque practices must through disturbing the binaries of inside/outside
(inciting the impassioned discourse around the rightful place of these ornaments),
of public/private (inflaming the disputes over the true location of these fields), of
art/vandalism (provoking the intense debates over the very designations of these
artefacts), rather than through solely confronting the base polarity of legal/illegal,
licit/illicit. Functioning through the breaking of taboos rather than laws, through the
innate contravention of prevalent socio-ethico conventions, these were public rituals
formed with an explicit cognizance of the moral underpinnings of their crimes,
an overt infringement of legal codes that was about justice not statutes, rights
(and rites) not wrongs. To act morally, one must thus act through the violation, or
more correctly the appropriation of public space. And just as we can see in Muirs
description of carnival (2005), ostensibly criminal behaviour could here be more
correctly understood as the expression of deeply held beliefs (ibid.: 100): This was an
insurgent aesthetic practice linked to the strongly civic convictions of my informants,
their pure need to utilize, play, inhabit, communicate with the public sphere. These
were forms of the carnivalesque working as types of images rather than calendrical
festivals, as forms of discourse, as lived-through practices (Stallybrass and White
1986). These were civic rites where space (rather than class or gender) was radically
decentred, where norms (not just laws) were radically destabilized, where a corporeal
entanglement with (rather than estrangement from) the city was instantiated. These
were carnivalesque practices in which my informants could express to themselves, to
other members of the city, to outsiders from their practice, their total commitment
to the values of the group.
Whilst clearly set within the Feasting/Fasting/Festivals archetype then, and,
in particular, within the carnivalesque ritual framework, many of the practices of
Consensual and Agonistic Ornamentation seem to quite clearly function within the
purview of Turners work on carnival (or ritual anti-structure as he has termed it). The
understanding of the contemporary ritual of carnival as a practice that aims to act
upon the injustices, inefficiencies, immoralities [and] alienations of the modern city
(Turner 1979b: 117), as something not merely reflective but also reflexive, clearly
combines with the civic desires of these insurgent actors; their search for new
social relations in the city (whether centrifugal or centripetal), their rejection of the
increasing instrumentality of our urban visual culture (to not replicate but exceed the
mendacity of advertising), their search for a moral way of utilizing its surfaces (their
agentic markings revivifying public space). Like the public liminality of carnival then
(Turner 1979a: 474), when these insurgent rites transpire the streets become a place
which is no place (even where that place is a citys main plazas), a time which is no
time (even when that time can be found on an ecclesiastical calendar) (Turner 1983:
103). It becomes a site in which normative rules of time and space are decentred,
181
where one wastes time through working for free, where one rejects the normative
use of space through turning the private back into public, the public back into private.
The liminal moment thus becomes one in which all normative functions of the city
are upended where its usage for mere getting and spending is rejected in favour
of giving and sacrifice, where its usage for preserving law and order is rejected in
favour of its usage for experience and flow (Turner 1979a: 475). And the city thus
becomes a time and a space in which the meaning and potential, the use value of
ones surroundings became radically altered. It becomes a time and space where a
dustbin became a ladder, where a wall becomes a canvas, where the city becomes a
plaything, where law and order becomes a mere imposition to moral action.
Furthermore, the deep egalitarianism, the comradeship and conscious bond
of amity which was so present within my group of informants a fellowship
which was a constant source of amazement to me, in which it was not favours but
responsibilities that were enacted7 could be seen to have a direct link to Turners
famous notion of communitas. The intensified experiences which they shared within
these ritual acts enabled this comradeship. Painting together, painting as a group,
painting with full comprehension of the risks that lay within the act (whether acting
in a metasocial context and thus performed in full view of everyone, or in a more
clandestine, covert site set off from the routine world [Turner 1979a: 467]), created
an experiential bond which could only ever be substantiated through this very
act itself. It formed a conscious kinship which flowed back from these moments of
liminality into the everyday, pervading their lifeworlds as a whole. It meant that one
took on responsibility for one-anothers wellbeing (from working together as a group
to entirely rebuild their studio, from being available for physical or mental exertion,
from helping to undertake tasks whenever and wherever), a responsibility that was
enacted without consultation and deliberation, that was crucial to the survival of
the group as a whole. Turners contention that ritual set[s] up a frame within which
images and symbols of what has been sectioned off can be scrutinized, assessed, and,
if need be, remodeled and rearranged (ibid.: 468) can thus appear to be especially
prescient here. The production of the parergon, the disavowed, forbidden ornament,
the generation of images which are constantly repositioned, reordered, reorganized
by their producers, can thus be seen to act as the quintessential example of a liminal
ritual, a ritual liminal within both its material and performative positions, a practice
which sets up a ritual frame through the production of a physical frame itself.
7
5.11 On the
way to paint
(plastic bags
full of paint not
groceries), Madrid,
Spain, 2008
As for Bakhtin, his conception of carnival as a fully separate reality also appears
to function in direct accordance with my informants ornamental practices.
As autonomous, self-supporting, self-governing practices, they are primarily
independent, as Muir explained (2005), from the world of hierarchy and authority
(ibid.: 99); they are practices which refuse the boundaries of the institution, which
rest in the independence of the street. Equally, these are rites in which everyone
participates because its very idea embraces all the people (Bakhtin 1984a [1965]: 7),
in which participation is a prerequisite so as to belong to the group itself, the
practice and the people in fact inseparable they are Independent Public Artists,
they practice Independent Public Art. And as prototypical examples of what is
considered to be low-culture, a form of marketplace speech which rejects
prevalent societal norms of etiquette and decency (ibid.: 10), both Consensual
and Agonistic Ornamentation can in fact be seen as prototypical Bakhtinian acts.
They are forms of outsider art which took joy in embracing the vernacular, which
attempted to speak in the colloquial slang of the street rather than the obfuscatory
dialect of the fine-arts. Moreover, the fusion of artistic techniques that these
ornaments provoke the intertwining of calligraphic, performative, site-specific,
public, installational, and environmental-arts their erosion of the very notion of a
stable, timeless art (an art which is left to decay rather than anxiously conserved)
can be seen to follow Bakhtins famous focus on hybridity. Distorting the set
language from within language, eroding established barriers through working
within the barriers, it can be seen to set up conflictual relations to art through the
very language of art itself. These insurgent acts use one voice to critique that same
voice, using the city to critique the city, using art to critique art, setting up various
183
arguments (as most perfectly seen in 3TTMans eponymous character) within one
unique position, different modes of understanding for something often thought
of as fixed. And this intentional, rather than organic hybridity, this intentionally
contestatory hybridity, can thus demask the normative mode of the city, demask
its increasingly denatured status, keeping the potential for dialogue alive beneath
the official monologue (Mumford 1989: 21). Working as part of a wider process
of erection, erasure, and erosion, an inexhaustible process in explicit discourse
with city authorities as with the numerous other architects of the ornament, there
was thus an open-endedness to these works which was overtly present within the
image, a visual notion of the carnivalesque employed through a dislocation rather
than concretization of meaning. It was an ocular heteroglossia, a dialogism always
in the process of change, modification, metamorphosis, one that visibly attacked
the notion of any authoritative language. It was a practice in which words or images
were saturated with contested and unfinished meanings (Mumford 1989: 29),
a practice which was always in the process of remaking and remodelling, not
only due to its base ephemerality but so too as part of a perpetual, interminable
game. The practice of ornamentation thus promoteed an ambivalence allowing
openness and transgression (Lachmann 1989: 116). Like the licentious of Rabelais
it aimed to provide an instantiation of the carnivalesque through the means of
the pen, a practice working not as a spectacle but as an embodied practice. And
what these epigraphical inscriptions embodied was thus a carnival spirit which
consciously and clearly dislocated stable meanings, inscriptions which promoted
the other side of established values (Bakhtin 1984a: 272). It was a modality that
literally transgressed its concrete media (its concrete edifices), that materially
transgressed space, that instrumentally transgressed time. It was a practice of
ritual laughter that transgressed both the concrete media in which it expresses
itself and the historical space and time in which it is actualized (Lachmann
1989: 133), a laughter that could negate and affirm, that could renegotiate the
understanding of the city itself.
5.12, 5.13 and 5.14 To unsettle, not destroy/To function in a different register.
Three untitled posters by OX from Genevilliers, Paris and Arcueil (France), 2012
Inhabiting the already presiding structures of our cities (rather than operating from
a purported exterior), functioning through the outside that is, paradoxically, on
the inside (ibid.: 11), as something that is not a tool that you apply to something
from the outside but something that happens inside (Derrida 1997: 9), these
practices can be seen to have constructed a visual alterity that sought not to simply
reaffirm that which it resisted, to merely destroy it, but rather to interrogate and
unsettle it. These works did not simply efface what was already extant. They played
with it. They questioned it through their mere existence. It was not simply that
these images displayed the nature of the group as the archetypal constituent
outside, a body in the heart of, yet separate to the centre, a group working upon
the very liminal boundaries of the city itself; the production of these ornaments
themselves aimed to present another ideal of the city, to work not from outside
the discourse of the city itself but to remain deeply embedded within it, seeking
neither to invert nor destroy the boundary but in fact to destabilize it. These
works do not reverse order, nor do they supplant it. I argue that they transcend it
through a positive displacement, they pervert the wall (again following the OED,
they interfere with or distort [] impede, thwart) and thus pervert order itself.
Wigleys (1988) earlier discussion of an ornament in critique of order can thus here
come back into focus. His suggestion that one must form a material aesthetic that
refuses to succumb either to the traditional definitions of art or the traditional
mechanisms of the discipline of architecture can be seen to echo my informants
attempts to provoke a material deconstruction that works through an internal,
rather than external violence (ibid.: 556). It is an ornament that critiques structure
from within structure, which exposes the cracks and fissures of structure through
integrating within the cracks and fissures of that structure itself.
All of my informants ornamental practices can be seen to have worked in this
way. In both their medium and their message they place themselves between
rather than for or against, they set themselves in opposition but not in reflection,
discomposing, disturbing, agitating but not destroying. Like de Certeaus (1984)
description of the silent resistance of the colonized, the indigenous tactic of
manipulating the coerced practices forced upon them neither by rejecting or
altering them but rather using them with respect to ends and references foreign
to the system they had no choice but to accept (ibid.: xiii), one can see these
ritual, carnivalesque practices as a way of escaping power without ever leaving
it, perverting not subverting or inverting them. One can see these practices
transforming hegemonic impositions from within not by rejecting them or by
transforming them, but through procedures of consumption that maintained
their difference in the very space that the occupier was organizing, an ability to
metaphorize the dominant order and thus make it function in another register
(ibid.: 32). These ritual practices must therefore be seen to have functioned not
only as an expression of paradigmatic values then (the communal aesthetic values,
the importance of painting within the public sphere made visible through the
existence of their ornaments), not only as a mechanism for bringing the individual
into the community and establishing a social entity (the group bond enforced
and reinstated through the act of performing together), but as a process for social
187
transformation, for struggling over control of the sign (a remodelling of both the
world and the image through the performative act) (Bell 1997: 89). The group
were bound through these carnivalesque acts. They were bound by virtue of a
heightened intimacy and a sense of being a distinct [] community in opposition
to so much around them (Bell 1997: 206), bound through a practice which could
then work to structure what the community is produced from, against, in spite of,
and in relation to (Spyer 2000: 292); and yet these very same practices also reflected
the beliefs of these members within the public sphere, they enabled these actors
to act upon the public sphere, to construct as well as reveal order.
Whilst in our previous chapter I thus argued that these ornamental practices
are quintessentially ritual ones, what I hope to have underlined here is both the
ritual archetype they subsume as well as the wider effect of these carnivalesque
rituals, their effect on both the group and wider milieu, their ability to both bind
their practitioners and to transform their physical and social realms in a specifically
perversive manner. Yet in our next chapter, what I now want to focus upon is the
ritual attributes which my informants themselves must assume. And it is thus the
playful, ambiguous, risky characteristics that they must adopt to undertake these
carnival rites that I will now turn to. It is the serious play, the trickster shift which I
now seek to explore.
6
Play, Risk and the Picaresque
often at odds with the order of the real world (Rapport 1997: 109). With a much
vaunted capacity to break out of determining logics then, to cross registers,
to generate novel meanings and understandings (Kapferer 2005: 46) a factor
which the excessively direct motives of gaming often elide play can thus be
understood as a space which can help to revive creative energies, to give rise to
a change of perspective, a new vantage point from which any present cultural
order can be called into question and replaced (Rapport 1997: 109). Playful and
serious, as Andr Droogers (2005) notes, are hence not necessarily opposites
(ibid.: 138). The perceived sanctity, the solemnity of ritual, a practice often
appearing to be performed in a serious manner, is itself understood to be in fact
a decidedly playful activity, just as play is an activity that is taken seriously as long
as it lasts (ibid.: 1389). Ritual can thus be viewed as stylized, scripted, serious
play, as a communicative narrative set within a ludic frame (Roger Keesing
1991: 657). And, like its dialectical dancing partner of ritual (Turner 1986: 30
31), play is not only linked to the protection of order but so too its disruption,
a disordering of social norms, a base disorderliness seen through the clowns,
jesters and pranksters who commonly inhabit these doubly liminal spaces.
This tight connection between ritual, play, and clowning, quite naturally leads
us to the archetypal anthropological notion of the trickster, these innately betwixtand-between creatures that inhabit the ground between the extraordinary and
the everyday. For Barbara Babcock-Abrahams (1975), the trickster was a criminal
culture-hero, a being at once embodying numerous possibilities the most
positive and the most negative (ibid.: 148). He1 was thus both socially peripheral
yet often symbolically central (Babcock-Abrahams 1978: 32), a liminal figure
endowing his group with vitality, all the while carrying the ever-present threat
and the possibility of chaos (Babcock-Abrahams 1975: 148). The trickster, quite
simply, was one who manifested dirt, one who constructed the now infamous
matter out of place. Yet for Babcock-Abrahams, his inborn marginality was too
often grasped in a solely negative sense, being dangerous to or somehow
below normal boundaries, a sense promoting an undeserved (or unproductive)
dichotomy between good and evil which persistently confounds the analysis of
the essentially ambiguous character of most literary marginals (ibid.: 14950).
Working, once again, against this either/or approach, Babcock-Abrahams suggests
that we might better view this ambiguity as a necessary dualism, as a notion of
marginality that exists whenever commonly held boundaries are violated, be
they those of the social structure, of law and custom, of kinship, family structure
and sexuality, of the human person, or of nature (ibid.: 150). We hence not only
return, once more, to the space of the violation of boundaries, to the supplement,
the space where even either/or will not do, but we emerge within a space where
we must revel in (or perhaps simply accept) a deeply entrenched uncertainty.
1
While Ricki Tannen, in The Female Trickster (2007), has attempted to shift the
study of this type into an explicitly female domain, as has Julio Rodriguez-Luis (1979)
in a study of the picara (the female version of the soon to be discussed picaro), the
archetypal trickster in general remains heavily biased towards a male figure.
6.1Nug, Territorial Pissings, Film Stills, Stockholm, Sweden, 2008. Image courtesy of artist
6.2 Portrait of
3TTMan, Madrid,
Spain, 2010
The trickster thus stands in immediate relation to the center in all its ambiguity
(ibid.: 168), he stands steadfast within the interior, neither a plus nor a minus []
neither confusion or distinction [] neither a position nor a negation (Derrida
2004 [1981]: 40), a relationship underpinning his customary negations and
violations of custom, a state through which he condemns himself to contingency
and unpredictability (Babcock-Abrahams 1975: 159). The Trickster Shift as Allan
J. Ryan (1999) terms it (following the Ojibway artist Carl Beam), an impulse
key to both artistic and shamanic practices amongst First Nation groups and
one forming a critical link between subversive practice, aesthetic production,
spiritual truth, and cultural wisdom (ibid.: 3) must therefore be understood to
encompass a wealth of cultural strategies, practices working through outrageous
punning, constant wordplay, surprising association, extreme subtlety, layered
and serious reference (ibid.: xii). Through this depiction, the tricksters practices
can hence be seen in themselves as ones of serious play, a play that has as its
ultimate goal a radical shift in viewer perspective and even political positioning
(ibid.: 5), a serious play (or ritual practice) intent on disturbing the everyday.
This is the world of dtournement, the world (in his European manifestation) of
the trickster Guy Debord (2009 [1956]). It is the realm where a sign or word is
susceptible to being converted into something else, where we find the notion
of disguise closely linked to play, where one can detourn entire situations by
deliberately changing this or that determinant condition of them (ibid.: 39). This
is the trickster who works through metagraphic writings, who works through
adroit perversion (ibid.: 36). This is the contemporary trickster who works to
convert any sign or word into something else, even its opposite (ibid.: 39).
193
Franchot Ballinger (1991) sets out the divergences between the two in The EuroAmerican Picaro and the Native American Trickster, differences pertaining to their setting
within social reality in the former case and myth in the latter, low social status in the
first case and high in the second. The Trickster, furthermore, chooses to be marginal,
while the picaros marginality is the consequence of the Catch 22s of his societys moral
strictures and categories (ibid.: 24). In both, however, we seem to experience what is
generally termed ambiguity (ibid.: 26).
3
This marginality may have also, as Ingrid D. Rowland argues [2009: 83], been
due to the supposedly Jewish ancestry of the picaro archetype the aforementioned
Lazarillo de Tormes, the first of the picaros, himself having a Hebraic forename, Lazarus.
only to be fluid, plastic, and in-transition, but to perfectly match the clown type,
to in fact act as an ambulatory manifestation of boundariness (ibid.: 247). They
produce an alteration of borders, working not simply to break sacred precepts,
but to erase the border between this domain and that of the mundane, thereby
altering the order of relationship between them (ibid.: 248). And the deep
ideation of play they provoke, therefore, the inter-play of elements of order that
are in-play, must be understood as affinities of some more comprehensive notion
of uncertainty (ibid.: 68). The very notion of play, as Handelman describes qua
Bateson, can hence be understood to create a paradox of which the boundary
itself (or frame, in his usage) between serious reality and play was constituted
(ibid.: 69). Batesons famous maxim this is play hence becomes transmuted for
Handelman into this is uncertainty (ibid.: 71, my emphasis). The risk inherent to
play, the danger begot through its energy, its instability, meant that uncertainty
was deeply infused within it. And this very concept of insecurity, of ambiguity,
risk, was thus the recognition that [the] cosmos itself both ornament and order
exists as much through the deep flux of unpredictability, as it does through
determination (ibid.: 68). It was the realization that, whether valorised as beneficial,
harmful, or impartial, ritual uncertainty indexed the ultimately uncontrollable
nature of cosmos itself (ibid.: 68).
Intersection III: Field Notes, 11/04/09
[] We were waiting for what seemed like hours, sat on a bench right beside the building-site,
waiting not particularly patiently. Wed had some dinner, gone back to pick up some extra paint
from the studio then returned for the second time. It was late, probably half-eleven by now,
but this guy was still stood out on his balcony, still chatting loudly on his phone. He would
have had a perfect view so we had to be patient. We had to wait. We went for another wander,
chatting, smoking, waiting for our fly on the wall to leave the scene, returning after about
another half hour. He was still talking. And seemingly even more loudly at that. We prayed hed
get off to bed So we sat. We waited some more And, after what seemed like an eternity of
goodbyes, the baritone drone of our accidental spectator deceased, his terrace doors shut and
he disappeared from sight and sound.
3TTMan immediately kicked into action. He went round to the edge of the site [a large corner
block directly facing the town hall, a huge apartment building which had been almost totally
gutted save for its frontage] and soon found an easy point of entry, a corner from which we
could gain leverage to climb over the surrounding metal fence. He instantly knew where he
wanted to paint, an exposed wall right in the centre of the site, the only multi-level structure
left within the interior. It looked possibly like the remains of a veranda, a living room maybe,
a small, third storey room whose outside walls had been destroyed to expose its inner realm.
Quite why it had yet to be demolished was a mystery, yet there it stood, inviting 3TTMan to
come and play. We went in through the front at first, navigating the deep trenches which had
been cut out in the centre of the site, emerging into the eerie remnants of the house (if it could
now even be called that). They were always slightly uncanny these dead spaces, the paint
peeling off the walls, the multiple layers of wallpaper still present, the marks, the traces of its
past life; but in the middle of the night, in the silence, the uncanniness was multiplied. We first
tried a staircase within one of the still standing edifices, but they cut off abruptly half way up,
leaving just a gaping drop down to the trench below; we had to circle back. We moved to the
neighbouring structure, 3TTMan trying to shimmy up its slopping outside wall, intending after
to navigate his way across onto the rooftop. It was possible, maybe, but it seemed too hazardous.
6.3 and 6.4 Getting in 1 and 2. 3TTMan in Action. La Palma, Spain, 2009
6.5Under the
tarpaulin. 3TTMan
in Action. La
Palma, Spain, 2009
The room was just structural walls, almost no floor. And a gaping trench below for the impending
foundations. He slid back down. Frustrated. Think, he said to himself. Theres got to be a way
He went round to the back this time, climbing up the side of the building like a cat. Using the still
barred windows as support an almost perfect ladder to enter onto the now open third floor
he pulled himself up from the ledge and was in. Easy as that. He signed down that he was okay,
then disappeared from view, moving inside to try and find a way to the outside space he wanted.
I moved round to the front to get a better view and Louis was already at his spot, thumbs up,
starting to take off his backpack to get his paints. Yet before hed even put his paints on the
floor however, I saw him pause, crouch down, then slowly move back into the shadows. He
motioned towards me and point towards the back of the building. I immediately went round
the trench to meet him, unsure of what was happening but of course sensing the obvious
danger. It was only then I noticed the low hum of a car engine, the low rumbling of voices. He
lowered himself back down with care, landed silently on the ground beside me and grabbed
my arm, pushing me toward one of the nearby trenches; he pulled up the tarpaulin sheet,
and we dove under it, perhaps four feet into the dark earth below. We didnt move, both of
us intensely listening to the sounds outside. More voices, then the ominous crackle of a twoway. 3TTMan looked at me, fingers to lips. Yet just as silent as we were, we could have never
hoped for more perfect camouflage. The tarp was genius. We were totally hidden from view
from above but could due to the illumination of the street-lamps see everything above us.
It was like a two-way mirror. Someone could have come right up to us, almost touched us, and
still not been able to see a thing.
So we stayed there. More waiting but this time an interlude fuelled with adrenalin, our
bodies picking up every movement, every signal from around us. Ten, fifteen minutes
must have come and gone (or perhaps it was just two). 3TTMan whispered over to me
and I slowly crept out the cover, moving as quietly as possible to a gap in the corrugated
fencing to take a look outside. There was nothing. Anyone who had been here had by now
left the scene. I returned to 3TTMan and he was already halfway up the wall, assured by my
obvious lack of concern that the all was clear. He slipped back into the room and moved
to the front of the building, this time able to fully take off his rucksack, lay down his paints
and get started, coating the wall in white before proceeding to start the piece proper.
6.6 and 6.7 3TTMan, Resurreccioname Por Favor, La Palma, Spain, 2009
[It was Semana Santa, the week building up to Easter Sunday. and, being in Mallorca, surrounded
by huge festal processions every night of the week, 3TTMan had been utilizing Christian
imagery in all his work. There was the piece about the bread and the wine (ceci est mon corps),
a three headed, boxing nazareno (with their distinctive white habit and pointed hoods), and
now Christs Holy Wounds (slightly phallic wounds perhaps)]. Finishing the work in maybe 15
or 20 minutes, the final flourish was the textual inscription itself. Resurreccioname Por favor.
A possibly contentious statement, yet one meant to engender a smile, one with a healthy dose
of respect attached to it. But a message definitively meant for everyone to understand. And
viewable in its entirety from the street, viewable from the very centre of the city.
Done, 3TTMan climbed back down and we scampered back over the outer fence. Back to our
bench. And a well-deserved cigarette. I checked my watch and realized wed been in the site for
nearly two hours, we could hardly believe it ourselves. The whole thing seemed to have gone
in a moment. We stayed for a while, chatting, going through some of the photos Id taken while
inside, talking and laughing about how wed been so well hidden under the tarp. Louis was
trying to convey to me how much hed loved the excitement of that moment, how hed even
wanted the police to come, knowing full well that we would be invisible from sight, hidden
within the trench. It reminded me of being at my grandpas house, he was telling me. Playing
tag with my cousins I loved that moment in my life I had five cousins my age, about 20 or
more in total, and this was typical of that period of my life, hiding under the screen, climbing up
the building, it totally reminded me of that time. Scrambling up trees, hiding, playing. I never
want to stop doing that It was childs play for Louis. It was about returning some excitement
to the city. And he simply refused to ever stop playing []
[There were three key things I kept thinking about when mulling over this night. The first was risk,
the excitement engendered through the inherent danger of the act, not just the hazards presented
by the police, but by the specific locale of practice too, an all-pervasive issue present until the entire
performance was complete. The second was of course play. As Louis himself said, play was a crucial
element, playing with the city, with his surroundings, with imagery, images. And this, then, pushed
me towards the final of the three issues, the notion of creativity. For Louis it was all about improvising
within the environment, not only the physical but cultural milieu. He loved having a relevance to the
local story, utilizing but always upturning commonly held symbols and signs, always being the one
trying to make you smile, using whatever was available at hand, whether this was the city itself or
the stories that lay within it. More than anything else, however, he just loved what he did. And he
would do anything to be able to keep on doing it].
199
6.8Read More
Books, ReadUp, Nashville,
Tennessee, 2010
a possibility (ibid.: 72), the risk of malfunction or collapse (the triumph over
which gave the ritual practitioner their true power), understood not merely to
be represented as significant, not simply to be an illusory possibility, but to have
a real, ever present potentiality (ibid.: 75). Whether incurred through disruption
or destruction, through incompletion or incertitude, risk was thus an element
that could put ritual in extreme jeopardy, a factor that had to be channeled and
controlled by the rituals managers (ibid.: 75). These were practices that were
thus considered to be deeply informed by a relationship to the unknown, to be
a gamble that the practitioners must dare to conduct (ibid.: 76). And ritual was
hence always seen to be a contest even if the opponent is oneself (ibid.: 77)
a contest in which possession of ritual power had to be continually renewed
and demonstrated, where rites were considered forms of competition wherein
prestige values came to be re-distributed (ibid.: 76).
Howes focus on risk serves not only to foreground a key (but much neglected)
element of rituals constituent makeup however, but equally attempted to realign
the entire conceptual paradigm of its study. While the formerly dominant textual
approach to ritual (as epitomized by the work of Clifford Geertz, in particular
his classic article Deep Play [1972]) was considered to be insufficiently nuanced
toward both the agency of the participants and the particularity of the event
itself rituals status as an unrepeatable, singular occurrence produced by living,
breathing social actors the successive performative approach to its study (as
exemplified by theorists such as Edward Schieffelin) attempted to surmount
these quandaries both by seeing the ritual practitioners as fully imbricated
actors, actors with their own competencies, reputations and interests to a
ceremony (Howe 2000: 63). It was a re-focus upon ritual doing rather than ritual
meaning. Ritual as performance was meant, therefore, to capture the elements
of uniqueness, strategy, evanescence, presence and becoming that were lost by
a concentration on the meanings in fixed texts (ibid.: 64), texts that may have
had, like performances, a sequential pattern, an internal structure, and thus be
self-referential, but that could never fully subsume the innate ephemerality and
tangibility of practice. Yet whilst the performative model opened up the study
of ritual to these more practice-based elements, Howe argues that it neglected
any wider political or social narrative due to its unswerving, unshakeable focus
on practice occluding any sense of the longue dure. Moreover, it failed to
mention what he considered perhaps the most significant feature of the text
metaphor, inscription, an understanding which rejected the apprehension of
text as something already accomplished, a fixed and enduring entity which has a
specific set of meanings (ibid.: 64, my emphasis).
Rather than concentrating solely on text or performance then, ritual
as inscription provided an intermediating mode of analysis, marrying the
semiotic, structural mode of ritual analysis with the successive performative,
dialogical one, all the while embedding the value of risk firmly within them.
It moved to rehabilitate the notion of text from a method that sought to
consider rituals as texts which can be read and instead shifting towards
the notion of text as process, a process that transferred the saying into the
said, a technique of marking that sees its products as being always provisional
and always in the process of change as they are inscribed anew (ibid.: 645).
Text, then, becomes not merely a fixed entity with definite meaning, but a struggle
about who can get what inscribed (ibid.: 65); it becomes embroiled in issues of risk,
stake, claim, strategy and competition, turning into an innately political process
(ibid.: 65). Lack of different texts or the hegemony of one thus simply affirms a
system of power (whether economic, social or political), it confirms the exclusion
of other forms of writing, creating an appearance of textual stability, a faade (of
course) always open to subversion and revision (ibid.: 65). Howes notion of text
thus sees it as an innately processual form, a form that cannot be read without
understanding the complexity of writing itself, that cannot be comprehended
without acknowledging (akin to Gells art objects) its originary performative
marking, its material natality. And the metaphor of inscription comes to terms
both with the over-absorption on meaning elicited within a more textually driven
analysis and the fixation on doing within a performatively driven one. It attempts
to fully decode both concerns: meaning and action; exegesis and efficacy; semiotic
and phenomenological inferences.4 In this sense, as Howe continues, inscription is
what is done, it is the performative writing of bodily movements, habits, memories
and experiences of people at the moment it is being carried out, and hence just as
applicable to acts, skills, abilities, operations and procedures, as it is to meanings
(ibid.: 656). Ritual can thus be understood through the medium of text, a text,
however, that is re-written every time it is performed (ibid.: 66), one that always
links to others that have come before it, to ritual text as genre; it can thus be
understood as (literally) prescribed and fixed, yet open each time to rescription and
variability.5 By linking performances not only to ones that have preceded it but
also to others that will succeed it (rather than seeing each event as wholly unique),
renowned or celebrated performances (whether successful or otherwise) can
become a bench-mark for both evaluating subsequent ones as well as influencing
how they are actually conducted (ibid.: 67). They can be individual performances
linked within a wide ranging historical framework. Issues of creativity, spontaneity
and uniqueness, therefore, issues normally dismissed from a ritual context due
to its formal, textually driven attributes, can now become relative, not absolute,
they can become decipherable as either compelling or routine, rites appreciated
as potentially unique, creative and personalized (ibid.: 66). The inscription model
thus not only gives weight to the key ritual attribute of risk, to both what rituals
4
Thomas Csordas has likewise noted the text/performance dichotomy within the
study of ritual. As Strathern and Stewart write (1998), Csordas sees the former [semiotic]
approach as a function of textuality and meaning [] the latter [phenomenological/
performative model] as a function of embodiment and consciousness. Signs as
they appear in the course of ritual actions therefore also have two aspects: as
a function of embodiment, they present an existential situation; as a function of
textuality they represent a potential narrative (1994: 81). Csordas concentrates on the
phenomenological dimension because it has hitherto been neglected, but he does not
deny that the semiotic element may also be present (ibid.: 2412).
5
As Tsvetan Todorov has argued, no text is the simple product of a pre-existing
combination but is always the transformation of that combination [a] doublemovement, from work to literature (or genre) and from literature to work (Todorov
1990, in Hughes-Freeland 2007: 209).
203
mean and do, it in fact comes to reveal the notion of creativity inhabiting within
it, an inherent creativity residing amidst the apparently highly formalized,
highly restricted codes that Maurice Bloch (1989 [1974]) famously saw present
in its regulatory structure. And it can thus now lead us towards a crucial debate
emerging from anthropological studies of ritual, the debate over creativity and
sterility, between freedom and constraint, an intrinsic part of any investigation into
both ritual and aesthetic practices.
A Boorish Blabbermouth
For Bloch, as described in his 1974 paper Symbols, Song, Dance and Features of
Articulation, ritual practice was thoroughly illocutionary (a use of the term working
in diametric opposition to Habermass, and what he would in fact have termed
perlocutionary6), making it inherently less open to discursive refutation than
everyday techniques of communication. The limited grammar employed within
it (specifically, as the title of his paper suggested, within song, oratory, and dance)
was seen to have reduced the possibility for any open form of communication,
to narrow participants possible responses to the rite itself. With its stringent
formalization, its restricted, formulaic structure, syntactic and other linguistic
freedoms were reduced, propositional force decreased, individual freedom
constrained (Bloch 1989 [1974]: 20). Ritual was hence understood as hierarchical,
performative, cyclical, predictable, giving one no choice, simply being a set
of acts to which participants were structurally forced to commit. Its semantic
aspect, as Edward Schieffelin (1985) explained (in a critique of Blochs work), was
grasped to be so redundant that far from representing an enriched and emphatic
6
The term illocutionary as used by Bloch here may seem to have the almost
exactly contrary meaning to that recognized by Habermas (1991a, 1991b). For Bloch,
illocutionary force was understood not only as an action that was completed in-andof-itself, where one does something by saying something, but as something that falsely
persuaded you through a communicative mystification. Yet while Bloch was right to
see rituals as illocutionary due to their ability to transform a person from one state to
another, to perform an act in the very act saying of it (youre fired, I dub thee, I name
you, etc.), illocutionary perfomatives may be understood to have performative force but
not inevitably, even not especially, to be about influence or persuasion. A perlocutionary
act is quite distinctly about this negative notion of persuasion, about consequential
effects. They can act parasitically on illocutionary acts, yet these latter effects are
not necessarily predestined, nor necessarily desired by the speaker. For Habermas,
illocutionary action thus simply means action bent on understanding rather than
success, on apprehension not influence. It was about the free flow of communication,
transparency, an action taken not to persuade but to state. Perlocutionary speech was
that which was understood to be insincere, to be a hindrance to communicative action.
And it is this perlocutionary effect that Bloch seems to have a problem with, a form of
communication that interferes with the aforementioned free flow. Thus, while Bloch
does not use the term perlocutionary in his discussion of ritual, his understanding of the
illocutionary elides it as though its effects were perlocutionary, a form actively meant to
confuse, to confound, to control.
We can here note how Blochs argument works as the perfect mirror image
of Lyotards previously discussed work in Discourse/Figure. Bloch thus sees art as the
second-rate form of communication, while Lyotard, likewise, saw discourse thus;
Lyotard pronounced figure as the field of unlimited possibility, of pure freedom, Bloch
comprehending syntax along these exact lines. Yet whereas Bloch has seemingly
remained steadfastly against the potential housed within either art or ritual, Lyotard
did concede the possibility for accomplishments which lay in discourse. As David Carroll
explains (1987), for Lyotard, [as] long as critical discourse disrupts the established system
of meaning and keeps open the possibility of unforeseen relations and connections, it is
fulfilling its function of linking up with, without negating, the sensible. In this sense, the
function of critical discourse is to be more than discursive (ibid.: 33).
205
The innate violence contained within many ritual acts then (whether of a physical or
psychological nature), meant that they could in truth be seen as orgies of conscious
deference (Bloch 2005: 136), as the very antithesis of open communication. They
were dissonant, reductive strategies functioning as a kind of tunnel into which one
plunges, and where, since there is no possibility of turning either to right or left,
the only thing to do is follow (1989 [1974]: 412). They were a space in which ritual
participants were simply blindfolded, fooled, and deceived.
Nevertheless, and as Stanley Tambiah elucidated (1985), the rupture that Bloch
constructed between ritual and everyday language could be argued to be a highly
nebulous one; in fact, as Thomas J. Csordas has suggested (1997), Tambiah would
have undoubtedly taken issue with Blochs assertion that ritual communication
is distinct because it combines properties of statements and actions, pointing out
that all language does so (ibid.: 253). Csordas himself went on to claim that the
fundamental discontinuityBloch set up between these two forms of communication,
between propositional and metaphorical modes of thought, knowledge, and
discourse, unravels yet further when we grasp that metaphor, the sine qua non of
symbolism, is in fact an essential structure of all thought (ibid.: 252). Congruent
with Christopher Tilleys argument (see especially 1999) that metaphors are a
primary and irreducible aspect of language, that human thought is metaphorical
thought (Tilley 2008: 50, emphasis added), and alongside Lakoff and Johnsons
(1980) famous assertion that our entire conceptual system is largely metaphorical,
that the way we think, what we experience, and what we do every day being very
much a matter of metaphor (ibid.: 103), Csordas thus went on to suggest that the
supposed differences between poetic (symbolic, metaphoric), and speculative
6.10Nano4814,
Eternal Present
(An Endless
Void), London,
England, 2008
207
It comes to be found as much within the seemingly restricted figure as the apparently
complex discourse. And creativity can hence be seen to be the improvisation
of structural variation, an improvisational divergence working through implicit
attributions of meaning, through the products of shared experience (Friedman 2001:
59), rather than the radically new. It is hence a movement intelligible only to those
who participate in the social world in question, to be neither about freedom nor
about the liberation from constraint neither about randomness nor chaos the
implied corollaries of any pure creativity, of any individual idiosyncrasy but to be
negentropic, a form of increasing order not chaos (ibid.: 5960). As Margaret Boden
continues (1988), far from being opposed to creativity, regulatory conventions
permit the direct opposite; they make creativity possible (ibid.: 17). Creative practice
can hence not be seen to be about liberation but to be about spontaneity, intimacy,
and control (Csordas 1997: 263), an interplay through which repetition and formality
(contrary to their popular perception) can demonstrate an innately productive
dimension: In fact, these creative conventions can be seen as to create a diverse set
of repercussions, from new obligations, to new community, from form for inchoate
experience, to changes in traditional customs from new meaning for events to new
perspectives (ibid.: 249). They form a modality of improvisatory creativity which is
critical to my informants ornamental aesthetics, critical to the ritual, public, insurgent
practices.
6.113TTMan
and Remed at
Play. London,
England, 2010
209
of course, their notions of the drive and dtournement), there was a passion for play
within my informants practice (Debord 1955, in Andreotti 2000: 38), a collective
play working through the production of an antiwork (Andreotti 2000: 42). It was
a play abolishing any distinction between play and seriousness, or between art
and everyday life (ibid.: 38), a notion of the ludic that acted as a critique of human
geography through which individuals and communities could create places and
events commensurate with the appropriation no longer just of their work, but of
their entire history (Debord 1983 [1967]: 99). And through, as Debord continued, the
ever-changing playing field of this new world, through the freely chosen variations
in the rules of the game, actors could regenerate a diversity of local scenes that
are independent without being insular (ibid.: 99). They could create networks of
players the matrix of ritual partners, of fellow painter who were spread around
the world and at the same time tightly connected to each other; they could create
idiosyncratic geographic styles which all worked toward the same insurgent end;
they could undertake a ludic attack on the city, producing the metagraphic writings
Debord so fondly speaks of the hypergaphy which merges poetic and visual
aesthetics, textual and graphic discourses. As we have seen Droogers point out then
(2004), the significance of this play, its gravity, its weight, does not come to conflict
with, but to actually concur with this notion of ritual. These ornamental practices
were thus the archetypal, manifestly visible example of stylized, scripted, serious
play (Keesing 1991: 65). They were overtly stylized (working with specific aesthetic
techniques and systems), intrinsically scripted (working within a set of rules and
regulations and, more literally, often visibly enacted through lettering), fiercely
serious (liable for harsh punishment, containing gravity and consequence), innately
6.12Petro,
Untitled,
Newcastle,
England, 2012
playful (working with all of Huizinga and Caillois prescriptions); they contained all
of Keesings prerequisites of ritual action which meant that we can recognize it by
its frame if not by its content (ibid.: 65), which meant we could recognize it by the
frame that it both exists within and simultaneously manifests.
What was also key to all aspects of play however, its inherent ambiguity (as much
present, as Brian Sutton-Smith claims [1997], within its scholarship as its practice), its
basic indeterminacy as outlined by Gregory Batesons famous nip/bite [2000 (1972)],
the playful nip that denotes the bite but does not denote what would be denoted
by the bite [ibid.: 180]) can so too be determined within this highly betwixt-andbetween form of practice. As uncertainty permeates this meta-message of play
(Handelman 1998: 69), a play of forces, never more exhilarating nor frightening
than when boundaries are breached and identities blurred (ibid.: 67), these ritual,
ornamental actions are always and already subject to chance and the alea; they are
unpredictable acts, not only ones left unresolved and thus necessitating completion
by their attendant viewers, but acts in which the status of both producer and medium
is left intentionally equivocal; they are full of chance, the risk taken every time the
works are produced. Yet, and quite crucially here, these boundary-breaching actions,
these uncertain, ambiguous, hazardous acts, are also ones customarily fashioned by
boundary-breaching characters. And what I want now to claim is that my informants
can so too be understood to exemplify these innately indeterminate figures, these
ambiguous characters who are both socially peripheral working outside of
societal norms yet implicitly and symbolically central found, like their images,
at the very heart of our modern urban conurbations (Babcock-Abrahams 1978: 32).
Like the archetypal trickster then, these individuals combine subversive practice
with aesthetic production (Ryan 1999: 3), they seek to create shifts of perspective,
to transgress moral and societal strictures through their ornamental practice. They
transgress, like we have seen with Louis, through the upturning of classical, often
religious imagery; like we have seen with Eltono, through the contravention of
property laws in public space; like with Remed, through the non-instrumental use of
the street; with Nano, through the creation of dirt; or with Spok, through the violation
of language, the upturning of script. Like to the famous trickster, too, my informants
did not merely act like monsters, they literally (and habitually) dressed as such;
they donned absurd (homemade) disguises and fancy-dress, they played the fool,
performing in maniacal, low-fi psychedelic short films produced in the public space
of the city. Created for the weekly happening Montaa Sagrada an event overseen
by Nano, Luciano Suarez and Rafa Suen (extremely close friends of all at the studio)
yet always involving all of Nov Nueve (in both the production of the films as well as in
the set design for each night) trickster-type figures would play a central role here,
each of the members producing their own masks and costumes, commandeered by
Nanos unforgettable Montaa Monster. 8
8
See the following for some examples of these Montaa films: http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=R7TT01RmCMA, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOrABYyi
bec&playnext=1&list=PL7514500AC02B9874, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSZ8
LMGNg6k&feature=related, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4mXbaA8mws&featu
re=related, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gAVnm3N3Ss&feature=related, http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcNIcXZ27NI&feature=related, http://www.youtube.com/
watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=P5DE5G3vv-w.
The status of Banksy in the wider popular imagination I believe further attests to
this fact.
10
This in fact reminds me of a fantastic book produced by Momo entitled My
Scam, a thoroughly picaresque account of how he spent five years travelling around the
US supporting himself solely through the production of unsolicited House Portraits.
Please see http://momoshowpalace.com/MY-SCAM.html for more.
215
6.17(Con)-Artist
Zone. Madrid,
Spain, 2009
Their status as both loved and loathed, as artists and criminals, as underdogs and
outsiders thus places my informants directly within this dichotomous, ambiguous
role. It places them, like the trickster an oft employed metaphor for the 20thcentury artist, if often due to their aesthetic innovations being depicted (by so-called
defenders of tradition) as fraudulent artifice rather than fine art in the position of
what Lewis Hyde (2008) has termed trickster-artists, artus-workers, or joint-workers
(ibid.: 257), individuals who work to articulate and re-articulate joints, to make flexible
what is taught and arthritic, to attack the boundary which the joint manifests. The
picaro/artists life must therefore be understood as a deeply risky one. Their practices
are always on the edge of uncertainty (on the edge of the city, on the edge of the
law), ones which intentionally confuse proscribed social notions of morality (in terms
of propriety and property in equal measure). And it was my informants undertaking
of such picaresque behaviour, acts that induced so much unease, so much angst,
that thus connects them to Howes examination of danger and ritual (2000), their
hazardous rites gaining power through risk, their perilous rites indexing commitment
through the basic hazards of production.
Danger, therefore, meant contact with power. Risk, potential gain. Efficacy
understood to increase in direct correlation with stake. This was quite clear for
all my informants, for the producers of both Consensual and Agonistic Ornaments;
every performance engaged the unforeseeable, the capricious; every performance
was a potential failure as much as a success, non-fulfillment a constant peril. These
extrinsic dangers could of course be provoked through the inherent complexity
of completing a practice (the difficulty of accomplishing ones work, of marking
out an elaborate figure without indecision, without inconsistency, all the whilst
remaining cognizant of the various environmental dangers that their medium
furnished), through the danger to ones social position (through inexpertly or
inadequately completing this same task), through the will of outside agents
217
the variations perhaps only ever interpretable and visible to initiates being a
structural variation able to heighten, intensify and fuse the ritual process (Csordas
1997: 256). This was insurgent ornamentation as the constrained hammer not allpurpose stone, the restricted sonnet not everyday speech, impoverished with not
boorish blabbermouth (ibid.: 2556). This was ornament as a form undermining
the distinction between poetic and propositional modes of discourse, ornament
emerging from a deeply egalitarian social grouping, ornament as a ritualized
practice of a highly negotiable nature.
Rather than creativity being about novelty, uniqueness, about pure innovation
(a mode stressing individuation, separation from the whole, and a focus on
product), the creativity emerging from my informants actions can hence be seen
as one focussed on adaptation, interpretation, improvisation (a mode stressing
sociality, connection to a wider framework, and a focus on process). It was a form,
akin to Readings previously examined reading of Lyotard (1991), that rejected the
innovative nature of modernist art (compared to the paralogical form of its postmodern incarnation), that rejected innovations function in simply refining the
efficiency of the system (ibid.: 55). As unmitigated bricoleurs, Jack-of all trades
or a kind of professional do-it-yourself man (Lvi-Strauss [1989 (1966)]: 17), my
informants created with what surrounded them (using the city space as their
medium), they used every available tool (using the city as a tool), learning through
doing, refusing to follow the brute urge of the market. It was an improvisational
creativity that meant they all knew how to do anything and everything (to
sculpt, to print, to design, to paint, to build), without every needing to take on
the role of Artist . These were thus the very craftsmen of devious means LviStrauss depicted (ibid.: 17), furtive craftsmen working through conventions
not inventions, improvising with what was at hand to create new outcomes,
outcomes that were deeply negentropic, not entropic. They were the bricoleurs
who create from whatever is at hand, from a heterogenous set of tools, rather
than the engineer who creates solely from concepts, who creates ex nihilo (ibid.:
17). It was a model of creativity stressing social processes over material products
the ephemeral artefact and the ephemeral performance of equal import
one attempting to extricate itself from the cult of creativity, the overwhelming
obsession of our times. Like the creativity of Michael Camilles medieval artists
then, a creativity that was appreciated to function through the amalgamation
and integration of our material world rather than its transcendence, this was a
form of practice that was measured not in terms of invention, as today, but in
the capacity to combine traditional motifs in new and challenging ways (Camille
in Ingold and Hallam 2007: 17). Creativity, as Ingold and Hallam claim in a prcis
of Camilles work, could thus here be seen to emerge through illuminative
inscriptions that
would newly gloss, undermine, or mock written texts with drawings, often taken
from pattern-books, or already familiar figures [] Novelty in these manuscripts
therefore worked through supplementation as well as through the juxtaposition
of elements. It also operated through extensions and flows wherein the flourishes
of letters would merge with creatures and other motifs (ibid.: 17).
219
Of course this very passage, apart from being one that embraces creativity as
improvisation rather than innovation, takes on very different resonances when
transferred into our contemporary context. Transferred to the contemporary
timeframe, the authors could quite easily be commenting on the creativity
inherent within the insurgent ornamental productions that have been discussed
throughout this work itself. These were supplementary aesthetic products working
through improvisation rather than explicit innovation, products which could gloss,
undermine, mock their border zones, which would juxtapose and decorate them,
extend and merge their flourished letters with popular visual imagery. It thus not
only reiterates the relationship between my informants aesthetic productions and
the genre of ornamentation within which it exists providing an almost exactly
parallel mode of epigraphy to that found within medieval marginalia but provides
a tighter focus on the form of improvisational creativity ornament often displays,
one that could be witnessed in all of my informants creations, from the simplest tag
to the most complex installation. The conscious usurpations of written forms that
Camille explores (1992), the irreverent explosion of marginal mayhem that these
gothic images created (ibid.: 22), is thus echoed almost exactly within the uproar
provoked by my informants practices, the (dis)order they are seen to invoke, the
critical debates over centre and periphery that their marginal acts uncover (ibid.: 10).
They form an equivalently tricksteresque narrative, an ornament produced by
craftsmen working on the edge of the city, on the edge of the institutional realm,
craftsman who both worked upon the boundary and upended their very sites. They
form an equivalently carnivalesque space, a marginal aesthetic formed by artisans
placed on an occupational par with jongleurs and prostitutes, artisans roaming
between the intra and extramuros, ones effacing the distinction between centre
and periphery, between secular and sacred, between saints and sinners. And the
area which they inhabited was thus not only the site for representing the other,
but so too a place of self-inscription (ibid.: 150). It was a space, like the margins of
Gothic ornamental design (the space of gargoyles and chimeras, misericords and
posteriors), like the margins of the contemporary city (the place of our consensual
and agonistic ornaments) where both rational and irrational impulses could come
together to form a very particular architectural order, where they could come
together to form order through a unique style of ludic ritual (ibid.: 93).
Conclusion
I comprehend it now in a much larger sense, as the space in which things become
public, as the space in which one lives and which must look presentable.
In which art appears, of course. In which all kinds of things appear.
Hannah Arendt
Everything that is, must appear, and nothing can appear without a
shape of its own; hence there is in fact no thing that does not in some
way transcend its functional use, and its transcendence, its beauty or
ugliness, is identical with appearing publicly and being seen.
Hannah Arendt
practices not only took place upon a boundary, within the in-between zones
of the city, but manifested themselves through the ultimate aesthetic of quasidetachment, through an artefact which was in itself a creature of the boundary.
And what I now want to contend is that the arguments I presented within Part
II, within our examination of Order, can in fact also be seen to work upon similar
lines. It is not only play that functions on the edge, that works within a liminal
site, separate yet conjoined to the everyday; it is not only tricksters and picaros
that act as the living embodiment of the marginal, as the half-outsiders, as
boundary breaching characters with boundary breaching practices; it is not only
carnival perversion that works through ambiguity and disturbance, between
inversion and subversion, that is set directly within the constitutive outside;
it is the overarching modality of ritual itself that can so too be understood as
the epitome of the quasi-detached, it is the overarching ritual order that also
inhabits the space between the ordinary and extraordinary, that exists on the
borderline of art and life.
Following Csordas then (1997), I want to stress the evident permeability of
boundaries between ritual events and everyday life (ibid.: 68), a permeability
which echoes that of the very walls that these ornaments pervade, a permeability
which inhabits ornament and order in equal measure. Like the artefacts examined
in Part I, all of the ritual elements discussed in Part II will hence be considered as
parerga, to be on the edge between two poles yet to exist so as to disrupt each
of these poles, to disturb them rather than merely to set them in distinction.
Both the production of the artefact and the artefact itself can hence be seen to
be caught within the parergonal logic, both ornament and order, both material
residue and performative trace containing a transcendent exteriority [which]
touches, plays with, brushes, rubs, or presses against the limit (Derrida 1979:
21), a constitutive threat able to transform the theory it is set within. And now, I
hope, the very title of this book will become more comprehensible. Parerga do
not merely signify literal ornaments, the drapery (or the graffiti) which disrupts
the notion of internal and external, the frames, the hors doeuvre which have
no beginning and no end; they must be understood to signify the exceptional,
the peculiar, the extraordinary (ibid.: 22), to signify play, carnival, ritual, the
acts which both are and are not, which augment and disconcert yet which are
related to their ergon through an inseparable bond. The boundaries that are set
between ritual and the everyday, between work and play, between ornament
and wall, the boundaries meant to function through a process of exclusion,
can thus more profitably be seen as borders, as sites of exchange as well as of
separation, as an active edge, as a site of resistance (Sennett 2008: 22731).
And the ornament and order which we have explored here, the artefact and
the performance, the relic and ritual, can thus be understood to embrace all
the elements that this anxious realm provides, embracing the heightened
sensitivities, the heightened tensions that these borderlands provoke. It is an
ornament and order enveloped within the marginal, the quasi-detached, an
ornament and order which is parergon.
Conclusion
223
This differentiation between regulative and constitutive rules was taken from the
work of John Searle, who argued that while constitutive rules create or define new forms
of behavior, regulative ones simply order antecedently or independently existing forms of
C.1Sam3,
Untitled, Madrid,
Spain, 2010
rules, that enabled these social actors to indicate both to themselves and the wider
community that they were prepared to adhere to the conventions which were
determined by the practice, committing and at the same time communicating
that commitment through concrete action. For my informants, what was of
principal importance was simply that this clear allegiance to the city was made, an
unwavering devotion to ritualized practice in the street, to insurgent production
within the public sphere proven. And their actions were thus dominated by what
Howard Becker (1960) termed the side bet, a state where the committed person
has acted in such a way as to involve other interests of his, originally extraneous
to the action he is engaged in, directly in that action (ibid.: 35), a side bet which
proved that ones actions were beyond reproach. This was not a part-time hobby
then (although perhaps it was a full-time one, in that it was done for pleasure, not
gain). It was a practice that took time (at the very least, Malcolm Gladwells [2008]
magical 10,000 hours); that took money (the opportunity cost incurred through
choosing to work without payment); that involved a huge amount of risk (to ones
body in dual terms, risking ones health through its inherent danger, risking ones
liberty through its illegality). It was an overarching dedication that was impossible
to simulate, fidelity revealed through the consistent endangering of ones liberty,
through the consistent renouncement of instrumentality, through consistently
consuming ones time. Working in the public sphere was the only virtuous, moral
way to act for my informants; it was the sign of a true citizen, the sign of one who
dwelled in the street. And only by producing these ornaments could one thus
prove his acceptance to the wider order, only then could he indicate to both
himself and to others that he accept[s], whatever is encoded in the canons of the
liturgical order in which he is participating (Rappaport 1979: 193). It was by action,
by subjective involvement (with all the affective qualities these engendered) that
one gained embodied knowledge, a knowledge more important than any purely
cognitive understanding. The specific reasons why one acted the way one did
were thus rarely discussed within the group, not due to any explicit taboo but
simply due to its status as tautologous: One could see beliefs. One did not need
to hear them. The only thing of true import was action in itself. This was belief as
something lived, practiced, performed, on a daily level. And my informants did not
simply commit to the practice of what is often termed graffiti then, commit to an
aesthetic modality known as street-art. They committed to public performance,
to exposition, to the fulfilment of specific, corporeal tasks. They committed to the
transgression of norms and laws which were ethically untenable, a commitment to
the city that enabled the rapprochement within the group as a whole.
behaviour (Searle 1969: 33). Regulative rules were thus most overtly recognized through
habitus, the rules of etiquette that police social relationships independently of stated
rules, constitutive ones identified through games (football and chess most notably), and
thus crucially non-imperative, simply explaining the meaning of particular expressions.
Humphrey and Laidlaw thus place ritual clearly within the realm of the constitutive; it is
stipulation, as distinct from mere regulation which is constitutive of ritual. Only ritual acts
(like valid moves in chess) count as having happened, so the celebrant moves from act to
act, completing each in turn and then moving on to the next. This is unaffected by delays,
false moves, extraneous happenings, or mishaps (Humphrey and Laidlaw 1994: 117).
This dedication to the polis then, this duty to action within the public sphere
meant that my informants actions can be understood to function in a manner almost
directly opposed to that of the Baudelairean flneur so famously described by
Walter Benjamin (2003 [1938]), the flneur who goes botanizing on the asphalt, the
harmless, perfectly affable flneur (ibid.: 19). These social actors were landscapists,
not botanists, horticulturalists not phytologists, their actions in the city saturated
with bodily engagement, devoid of the detachment and social disconnection
which the flneurs purely visual, voyeuristic, gaze can be understood to sustain.
Analogous to the Baudelairean archetype, to the de Certeauian homme ordinaire
whose peregrinations lent a political dimension to everyday practices (de Certeau
1984: xvii), they did aspire to lose themselves in the city, to be fully attuned to the
ephemera and contingencies of the urban matrix, to recognize that it exceeded
reason, experiencing it in a way that escaped the structures and statuettes of
bourgeois authority (Clark 2000: 17). So too they followed (almost exactly) the
Benjaminian (2003 [1938]) description of the flneurs attempt to convert the street
into a dwelling place, his transformation of the boulevard into an intrieur, the
caf terraces surrogate balconies from which he looks down on his household
after his work is done, the shiny enameled shop sign thus being appreciated to
be as good a wall ornament as an oil painting is to a bourgeois in his living room
(ibid.: 19).2 Yet rather than the detachment inherent to flnerie, my informants
were immersed within a daily enaction of reconstruction and renewal, a physical
engagement which directly challenged the passivity and submissiveness which
Zygmunt Bauman (1994) has argued is the contemporary flneurs predicament.
They directly challenged the docility which Bauman believes the contemporary
city engenders, the submissiveness that has emerged through the increasing
schism between public and private space in our metropolitan landscapes, through
the iron cloak of consumerism which now lays heavily on the shoulders of the
modern urban dweller (ibid.: 15053).
For my informants, the street was about action not consumption, inscription
not instrumentation, a place of active, physical praxis where one could publicly
reflect upon, act upon the world so as to transform it (Friere 2000 [1967]). They
directly attacked the schism between public and private through their insurgent
ornamentation, they directly attacked the iron cloak of consumerism through their
inalienable actions. The street was thus a site of disclosure and transmission, it was
a communal register to use the evocative words of Spiro Kostof (1992), a stage of
solemn ceremony and improvised spectacle (ibid.: 243). It was the hallowed place
where my informants wrote, where they painted, where they daubed, smeared,
sprayed, scratched, installed and displayed their decorative forms. It was the site
where they imprinted their social relationships, where they communicated with
2
Startlingly, this Benjaminian observation concerning the veneration of shop
signs was a habitual occurrence amongst my informants. More time was spent observing
and discussing these objects, examples of an artisanal, calligraphic beauty, than spent
analysing any traditional, museum-based art with a more distinctly capital A.
each other, where they formed and shaped a collective commitment.3 And it
was this material entanglement with the street, this corporeal commitment that
contradicts the pleasure Bauman (1995) has suggested has come to be drawn
from the mutual estrangement and absence of responsibility embedded within
the modern street, a way of being which he argued alleviated people from any
form of lasting obligations (ibid.: 132). The street was not seen by my informants
merely as a passageway from one place to another, a location for brute transfer
or movement. It was the place where every problem could be solved or resolved,
where a deep civic commitment was enacted. It was a site in which obligations
were enacted through its ornamentation, in which engagement not estrangement
was found. It was a site in which a societal responsibility was performed.
As much as being a mode of self-expression then, a release from societal
strictures, painting was pledging, painting was confirming. And this, I would
argue, is the key reason why my informants were still so active in the street, still so
insistent upon working within the public sphere. It is why they were still so active
even whilst they nothing left to gain, whilst their status in both institutional
and subcultural arenas was already assured. It was a commitment to present
action, not latter effect, that their ornamentation instantiated, a commitment to
religion in the sense of its Latin root ligare, an act which could bind, which could
connect.4 Commitment thus affixed you to others, it fused you to a community of
like-minded, civic-minded, public-minded kin. It brought you into what Susanne
Kchler (1994) has termed a ritual confederation (ibid.: 96). It brought you into
an alliance which was governed in a further coherence between the insurgent
3
It is hard to overstate the importance of this locale for my informants. The street
was not only the source of everything, it was the always abundant natural resource.
Need a medium with which to produce your work? Vamos a la calle. Need material for
your exhibition? Vamos a la calle. Wood to refurbish your studio? Vamos a la calle. A
location to record a short-film? Vamos a la calle. A place to rest, to relax, to play? Vamos
a la calle. The street was always and already the answer.
4
This connectivity through commitment was made most clear to me one day
when spending time with Sixe and Goldpeg in Vigo. Sixe had just closed a sold-out
gallery show in Barcelona, another in Madrid, and was getting recognition both for his
contemporary and independent public work on a global scale. He had no intrinsic need
to paint illegally: His name in commercial terms could not at that point have got any
bigger; his status within the non-institutional realm already garnered through years of
illegal practice. Yet in a one-hour spree (in the middle of the day), Goldpeg and he had
gone from the very top of the city to the port, incessantly (and joyfully) tagging the
entire way. Later recounting this story to an acquaintance, he could not understand
why someone in Sixes position would make the effort, could be bothered to still
work in this illegal setting. The answer was quite simple: This commitment fastened
practitioners to one another. It instantiated your moral code. It ensured the boundaries
of the group remained cohesive. Quite possibly no images of the ornamental forms
produced by Sixe and Goldpeg that day have ever been published until now (either in
electronic or physical form). Quite possibly only a handful of people in Vigo (a handful
who Sixe and Goldpeg probably already knew personally) would ever have even known
who produced the epigraphical inscriptions. Yet for them that was of zero importance.
They were there and knew what occurred. And they were bound by it.
Conclusion
229
ornaments here discussed and the famous malangan sculptures of New Ireland
by the right to reproduce a particular image, an image that was then shattered
into innumerable variations in the course of its repeated reproduction, an
image that was scattered and expanded through regional networks of these
confederations (ibid.: 96). This community of practice thus formed social bonds
through the production of their illicit ornaments, bonds which were formed
not through a common history of intermarriage, but in terms of the memory of
imagery and of the knowledge of how to reembody this imagery (Kchler 1988:
629); they formed an entity of one skin (ibid.: 632) through their knowledge and
re-enaction of this imagery (through both imagining and imaging alternative
viewpoints [Ryan 1999: 5]), an entity of ritual practitioners forming a tightly
encased, enclosed group envelope. Like Rappaports (1999) discussion of the
ritual efficacy of planting rumbim, an act which joins a man to the group with
whom he plants (ibid.: 114), here it was painting rather than planting that
functioned to consolidate the group, here it was painting, rather than dancing
(see p. 72) which embodied pledging, which came to indicate [] membership
rather than merely symbolize it (ibid.: 76). By publicly committing, by producing
together, one implicitly and openly pledged allegiance to the same moral
codes and values as the other, one accepted the dangers of membership, one
accepted its economic and ritual responsibilities, and one could thus receive
their full rights of membership (ibid.: 77). Each individual that I conducted my
fieldwork with thus became members of one another, became co-present in
each other through the mutuality of being that was formed through partaking
in these crucial acts, through sharing one anothers experiences (Sahlins 2011:
11), through taking responsibility for and feel[ing] the effects of each others acts
(ibid.: 14). It was a kinship, a confederation, an ornamental society constructed
through an unrelenting commitment to ritual action.
As Sennett has described examining the workshops of medieval craftsmen
(2008), it was ritual in and of itself that forged a strong sense of community,
that created a network that could provide contacts for workers on the move
(the ever-present couch, for my informants, available in every city in the world5),
a bond that emphasized the migrants obligations to newly encountered craft
members (the instant responsibility felt to other street practitioners6), which
formed associated fraternities (global collectives) who would provide for you in
times of need (ibid.: 60).
5
And which, of course, must also be available in your own house or your own
studio.
6
One evening after just leaving the studio, Spok and I bumped into two lost
American brothers, both looking slightly dishevelled and searching in vain for a youth
hostel. They were street performers, one of whom would play the harmonica, the other
in control of a dancing, homemade marionette, classical picaresque figures travelling
across Europe with empty pockets. Within moments of meeting them Spok had decided
that they would be staying at the studio. It was the sort of good will that he had been
a recipient of countless times in far-off destinations, and, as such, a benevolence that
he need return.
Conclusion
231
C.83TTMan,
Untitled, Tarifa,
Spain, 2012
Rather than the chaos and pollution which Terry sees them represent, they can
be seen to enact a model of citizenship which has the polis at its heart, a model
of citizenship able to counter the authoritarian management of will and opinion
formation by the market or the state, able to initiate new conditions, new
opportunities (ibid.: 1026) for the contemporary public sphere.
While the practices of Agonistic and Consensual Ornamentation may be so
idiosyncratic on their superficial levels then, they will here be seen to come to
reconciliation through their equivalent valorization of the beautiful, through
their equivalent valorization of a life devoted to public-political matters (Arendt
1958: 1213). They will be seen to reconcile through their joint adherence to the
vita activa over the vita contemplativa, to an active engagement in the things
of this world (ibid.: 17). Both forms, whether following a politics of agonism or
consensuality, were not simply beholden to but consumed by an active relationship
with the city, consumed by display, by exposition, by revelation in the street at
any cost. And the authentic polis, what Arendt has called the most talkative of all
bodies politic (ibid.: 26), could hence be understood to lie not in any particular
physical location, but in the organization of the people as it arises out of acting and
speaking together (ibid.: 198). It can be seen as a space which can elicit a power
actualized only where word and deed have not parted company, where words are
not empty and deeds not brutal, where words are not used to veil intentions but
to disclose realities, and deeds are not used to violate and destroy but to establish
relations and create new realities (ibid.: 200).
These words, these deeds, are ones which I would suggest follow both modes of
ornamental practice delineated in this work, words and deeds which come to in
fact conciliate many of their inherent differences. These words and deeds, images
and actions, ornaments and orders, were ones which were both based on innately
illocutionary frameworks, ones which both aimed to establish relations and create
new realities (ibid.: 200). The agonistic belief in dissensus and the consensual
approach to reason can thus simply be seen as variant means of engaging fellow
citizens, variant methods of action. They can be understood simply to contain
differences of tone and emphasis; differences that generate fruitful and talkative
tensions rather than the silence of total otherness, differences which never come
to render them utterly incompatible (Markell 1997: 394). These ornaments, these
artefacts which are both in need of some public space where they can appear and
be seen, in need of a space through which they could exhibit themselves in a world
which is common to all (Arendt 2001 [1968]: 18), thus come to fold back into each
other through the fundamentality of action, of action as embodying the very basis
of human freedom, embodying the very basics of civic life. They act not merely
to encode an understanding of the street, an understanding of contemporary
democracy, but to instantiate a form of insurgent civility. They act as a mode
of action that is not merely discursive, not merely performative, but one that is
parergonically anchored between the two.
Postscript
Corpothetics
Ornament and order, art and ritual have of course oft been conjoined to one
another. Famously connected by the classicist scholar Jane Ellen Harrison (a key
member of the Cambridge Ritualists group), in particular within her text Ancient
Art and Ritual (1913), the two spheres intimate connection, their common root,
has oft been seen to be the joint impulse towards collective emotion they share,
their analogous status in which neither can be understood without the other
(ibid.: 2). Centring her study on Ancient Greek theatre, Harrison believed that
the etymological linkage between the Greek word for rite dromenon and
for theatrical representation drama was as an issue of cardinal importance,
a linkage establishing the fact that art and ritual are near relations (ibid.: 35).
Translating both terms as a thing done (ibid.: 35), both ritual and art were hence
seen to give out a strongly felt emotion or desire by representing, by making
or doing or enriching the object or act desired (ibid.: 26); both aimed to work
through a re-presentation or a pre-presentation, a re-doing or pre-doing, a copy
or imitation of life (ibid.: 135); both were social practices intent on defining a
collective morality or spirit (ibid.: 21718).
Much in debt to Sir James Frazers Golden Bough however, particularly his
emphasis on the fracture between magic and science, for Harrison so too there
remained a vital schism between art and ritual. Whereas art was understood as
a thing in itself, done for its own sake, ritual was seen to always looks beyond to
some end outside itself, to always have some magical intent behind it (Ward 1979:
19). Art was thus understood to be secular, rational, modern, a form of imitation
solely for the sake of material representations; ritual to be something sacred,
irrational, primitive, a form of imitation for the sake of practical repercussions.
Whilst great art may have arisen from ritual then, contemporary manifestations of
ritual were believed to be in essence a faded action (Harrison 1913: 23031). Ritual
was thus not only believed to be an archaic antecedent to what was a seemingly
enlightened art an antecedent form that must wane, that art may wax (ibid.:
228) but art was considered a more sublimated, more detached form of ritual
(ibid.: 228). From this perspective, ritual is thus understood to always be of the
subjunctive mood a modality in which actors form a sculptured prayer, a zone
where the desire was to recreate an emotion, not to reproduce an object (Harrison
1913: 256) art conversely seen to be crucially indicative an arena where the
copy becomes an end in itself, a mere mimicry, a space now devoid of all passion
and fervour (ibid.: 27). Moreover, it was a relationship with a set dominant partner, a
set evolutionary teleology leading directly from primitive ritual to modern art, an
ideal which whilst perhaps able to tell us more about the humanist, evolutionary
mental climate of her day (Ward 1979: 18) an approach that in itself could now
appear to be quite primitive1 is also one still quite widely entertained today.
In a more recent account of the connections between ritual and art however,
the classicist Jas Elsner (2007) has come to destabilize Harrisons Social Darwinian
timeline the apparent unstoppable surge toward a more dispassionate, detached,
anaesthetic state of art, one where aesthetic appreciation was cut loose from
immediate action (Harrison 1913: 135) suggesting instead that sacredly charged
images, what he terms a sacred phenomenology, fully permeated both the
Ancient Greek and Byzantine modality of visual representation (Elsner 2007: 42).
Arguing that explicitly ritualized or religious ways of viewing images came in fact
to predominate over what may be described as more aesthetic (or even secular)
responses to art in the culture of late antiquity (ibid.: 30), Elsner thus suggests that
the importance of these aspects has been conspicuously ignored by contemporary
research on Ancient art while simultaneously functioning as a vacuous truism
classical art practices appreciated to be religious, yet scarcely analysed as such.
Art historical issues such as style and form, patronage and production, mimesis
and aesthetics, were thus seen to have insulated the study of Greek and Roman
art from these vital ritual concerns (ibid.: 29), overwhelming them through a
shackled fixation upon historical evolution (ibid.: 37). Employing the traveller and
(proto-)geographer Pausaniass famous essay The Description of Greece from the
2nd century AD, Elsner utilizes Pausaniass key distinction between a religious,
ritual-centered discourse and a connoisseurial, art-historical one, building a case
around the simultaneity and co-existence of these discourses within the Second
Sophistics writing on art, a concurrency that would, by the fifth and sixth centuries
A.D. become mutually exclusive (ibid.: 33). Analysing the description of a bronze
offering made by the Orneatai at Delphi (after defeating the Sicyonians in a battle),
an offering or imitation considered not so much a static object as a dynamic set
of relations, not just something material but a performance, Elsner contends that
these images acted not only to represent the sacrifice and procession they had
vowed, but to in fact be that sacrifice and procession (ibid.: 43). These innately
1
Postscript
237
performative artefacts were thus not simply works of art, gifts, or tokens of
exchange with the gods (ibid.: 43): They carried dynamic religious properties,
acting as charged ritual objects in their own right (ibid.: 43).
Rather than the typical assumption that classical ancient art (the art of
naturalism and ekphrasis [ibid.: 48]) was innately linked to its (normatively allied)
Renaissance form, linked through a detached, mutually secular discourse, it was
the art of the middle-ages to which, Elsner argues, it in fact bore more resemblance.
The sacred images of Byzantium and the medieval west were thus understood to
have been closer to the arts of ancient polytheism than either the Church Fathers
or the Renaissance antiquarians would have wished or acknowledged (ibid.: 48),
a convergence between images and ritual that the moderns simply chose not to
recognize. The power of this highly ritualized visual culture was hence understood
to have gone hand-in-hand with the practice of iconoclasm and the damnatio
memoriae, which were so ubiquitous within the history of the Byzantine, a form of
destruction that asserts (rather than denies), the actual presence of its prototype
(ibid.: 44), which, through the images intrinsic power to portray the supernatural,
gave rise to the very fear of these artefacts. The cult images discussed by Pausanias
would thus later come to be dismissed from the prevalent discourse, coming to be
feared, as Elsner continues, and even destroyed, as demonic idols (ibid.: 33). Yet of
course, the destruction of images during the history of Byzantine Iconoclasm came
simply to allude to their overwhelming ritual presence, to prove (as I have discussed
in Schacter [2008]) that the images succeeded in their charge. The seemingly
endless cycle of production and destruction simply illustrated (and continues to
illustrate) the true power of these images to physically touch their viewers, to call
them into action, their destruction inevitably calling forth a fabulous population
of new images, fresh icons, rejuvenated mediators: greater flows of media, more
powerful ideas, stronger idols (Latour 2002: 1617).
Whereas the damnatio memoriae discussed by Elsner were believed to form
an elimination of memory through the demolition of images and inscription
the destruction of the image working akin to the very destruction of the person
condemned (ibid.: 44) Kchlers (1988) study of the Malangan funerary carvings
produced in New Ireland sees the ritual destruction of artefactual forms to in fact
aid memorialization, explicitly turning visual representation into memory (ibid.:
632). These highly ornate sculptures, revealed from their screened surrounds
during the mortuary ceremonies of social partners and later sacrificed either by
being taken into the forest to decompose of their own volition or sold to (evereager) foreigners and anthropologists, were produced explicitly so as to be
destroyed, a visual mnemonic system whose ephemerality generated rather
than impaired memorialization (ibid.: 626). As what we can see as a Melanesian
counterpart to the Western monument (the monument whose existence causes
amnesia but whose destruction causes immortalization), the Malangan enabled,
through its very erasure, the creation of an inherently recallable image, instigating
a process of remembering that is not directed to any particular vision of past or
future, but which repeats itself many times over in point-like, momentary and
thus animatorical awakening of the past in the present (Kchler 2001: 63).
Postscript
239
PS.2Jurne,
Untitled, California,
USA, 2012
were made in order that they should be seen by a public, an audience forcibly
placed into a social relationship with them (ibid.: 24); that they worked, through
abduction, as indexes of social agents or social agency, the outcome and the
instrument of this agency (ibid.: 15); and that they were difficult to make, difficult
to think, difficult to transact, they come to fascinate, compel, and entrap as well as
delight the spectator (ibid.: 23).2 The famous trap he discusses in his paper Vogels
Net (1996) is hence considered to be an art object not only due to it being a physical
manifestation of the mind of its producer or, as Arthur Danto would have it, due to
it being deemed an art object by its producer, but due to it being embroiled within
all the specific rituals related to hunting in Africa, intertwined within the complex
of social relations that these rituals elicit (ibid.: 24); unlike a common tool such as
a cheese-grater, then, a tool used in an implicitly routinized fashion, the net was
used in a highly ritualized one, marking out its status as an art object, marking out
its indexical abduction, its cognitive attraction, its social reception (ibid.: 24).
All these aesthetic processes, whether of a ritualistic or artistic nature, can thus
be understood to point towards both wider sociological as well as more contracted
individualistic issues, to be the physical embodiment of an individual mind an
artefact functioning as a form of extended personhood yet to work equally within
an intricate network of social relations to be unable to exist (like culture) without
its manifestations in social interactions (ibid.: 4). Like Rappaports (1999) notion of
canonical and self-referential ritual then, the messages of a cosmological versus
an existential nature (ibid.: 329), or, as Bruce Kapferer similarly argued (2005), the
latent capacity possessed by both ritual and art for communicating simultaneously
the immediately concrete and the abstract (ibid.: 39), both forms can be seen to
function through the universalizing of the particular and the particularizing of
the universal, bipartite facets that were both actualized and revealed in art and
ritual as performance (ibid.: 191). The common recognition that much ritual is
art, and vice versa, Kapferer continued, is thus upheld through their equivalently
complex compositional form, the fact that they both manifest varying possibilities
for the constitution and ordering of experience, as well as the reflection on and
communication of experience (ibid.: 191). Both art and ritual can hence both
be understood to contain elements of symbolism and drama, composition and
framing, work and play, to be practices which function directly through sensory
experience, performance and affect. They can both be seen to operate through
the realm of what Christopher Pinney (2001) has termed corpothetics, a sensual,
bodily way of encountering the material aesthetic world (as opposed to the more
conventional Kantian asensual, anaesthetics that Susan Buck-Morss has warned
of ), a mode of aesthetic engagement encompassing ritual images, as well as
what were more commonly appreciated as artworks (ibid.: 158), encompassing
ornament and order in all its forms. Ritual and art, as Ellen Dissanayake concludes
for us (1995), must therefore both be understood to be compelling, to use various
effective means to arouse, capture, and hold attention, both fashioned with the
intent to affect individuals emotionally, both exaggerated, stylized, formalized,
2
These three diagnostic features are pointed out by Layton (2003) in his critique
of Gells work (ibid.: 448).
Postscript
241
both bracketed, set off from real or ordinary life (ibid.: 468). And art, from this
outlook, cannot simply be considered simply as a variety of play or ritual but in
fact to be considered rituals equal, to be likewise concerned with a special order,
likewise concerned with a realm, mood [or] state of being (ibid.: 49). Ritual and art
must therefore both be judged as equivalent discourses, as ones that can neither
subsume nor dominate the other, ones caught in a boundless embrace. They must
be seen as two parts of a whole, each incomplete without its other, the parergon
and ergon in concord.
Postscript
243
A focus on purely art-historical notions such as style or form thus only gives us
one part of the story, insulating the images from their vital ritual concerns, their
traditional, invariant, rule-governed, sacred, performative, liminal, committed
states, their embrace of uncertainty, embedded risk, emergent creativity. Their
equivalent subjection to iconoclasm, or, as Latour terms it (2002), their existence
within the realm of an iconoclash (the destruction we are so unsure about),
thus comes to allude in both cases to their ritual power, their ability to touch,
harm, physically affect their viewer, to allude to their status as the cult images
he describes, allude to their irresistible ritual presence. It hints at the fabulous
population of new images (ibid.: 16) that these ornaments incite, every erased
image leading to the creation of two new ones, every destruction acting as
an incentive for continued production. The ornamental forms constructed by
my informants, much like the Orneatais bronzes, can thus be seen not simply
as static objects but as dynamic sets of relations, images of distributed
personhood, of a shared network; they become both material and performance,
the become ornaments totally infused with rituality like the Malangan a ritual
infused through their heightened production, their latent impermanence, their
social functionality yet are equally complex visual entities in and of themselves.
They thus elide their status as either/or ritual, either/or art, and claim neither/nor,
both/and. They elicit their distinct technologies of enchantment, functioning
through an incredulity shaped by their stylistic and mediumistic impenetrability,
through their animation, their agency, through violating perceptual expectations
through their taboo-breaking, law-breaking ingenuity. And so too like Malakulan
sand-art, theses ornaments act as a material residuum of a physical dance, a
congealed residue of performance, a physical choreography visually outlined;
they can provide witness to an aesthetics of efficacy, of ability, not a contrived
beauty but something that is at the same time both a ritual act and material
artefact, a decoration endowed with its necessary accidents. They are forms
linking both individual and collective themes, canonical and self-referential
notions, concrete and abstract conceptions. It is at once an art pervaded with
ritual intent and a ritual pervaded with an artistic one.
As Gell himself argued (1998), the great difficulty, almost impossibility, of
differentiating between religious and aesthetic exaltation and hence his
suggestion that art-lovers actually do worship images in most of the relevant
senses, refuting their de facto idolatry by rationalizing it as aesthetic awe (ibid.: 97)
can then help to clarify the thin line between the two fields, the equivalency
and interchangeability of art and ritual, of ornament and order.3 The separation
between the two sides, between the aesthetic and the ritual, thus becomes null.
It becomes an entirely moot point. And just as art is a trap, so too ritual can act
in the same way. To enter within such forms, as Handelman argues (1998),
3
Indeed, as Gell continues (1998), to write about art at all is, in fact, to write
about either religion, or the substitute for religion which those who have abandoned
the outward forms of received religions content themselves with (ibid.: 97).
PS.4Alone
[Hear], Untitled,
Vigo, Spain, 2012
is to be captured by, and caught up within, the logic of their design and
so to be operated on by the event, regardless of why it came into being, or for
whatever motives it is enacted. Such designs are [] snares of the mind and sense,
snares of Being (ibid.: 1617). Rituals, as Robert Innis (2005) continues, just like
works of art, must hence be understood not simply as instruments for clarifying
our life by imposing a set of canonical meanings on it, but as mechanisms that
have the ability to move us, to transform us, to affect us by influencing the lived
quality of our very existence (ibid.: 20910). They must be understood as social
frameworks that provide us not with a desiccated, purely intellectual knowledge,
but with a fully participatory one, a knowledge that fuses our consciousness
in all its dimensions (somatic-motoric, perceptual, imaginative, conceptual,
aesthetic) (ibid.: 20910). And this, then, comes to explain the deep affinity we
find between ritual and art, an embedded kinship functioning through both doing
and meaning, through symbolic and literal action, through, as Innis concludes,
Postscript
245
the production of a frame and a content that mutually define one another (Innis
2005: 208). This is a frame and content, an ornament and order, that embody
each other, rather than merely bearing on the other or externally pointing to
the other (ibid.: 208). This is a frame and content that we give ourselves over to
because in the deepest existential sense we find ourselves embodied in them
(ibid.: 208). This is their similitude, their interchangeability, their equivalent
framing. That they are both adjunctive and decorative. Both frame and content.
Both embedded within and themselves the parerga. Both ornament and order.
Acknowledgements
From the very first moment, the very first second I accidentally encountered my
informants in downtown Madrid during the beautiful, unforgettable Summer of
2007, they showed me more kindness, support and goodwill than I could have
ever imagined or have ever hoped. Feli, Guillo, Louis, Nanito and Xavier, not only
would this book have been impossible without you, but I feel that my life has been
immeasurably improved through simply knowing you. I cant wait to see you all in
July. Thanks also to the rest of my Madrileo family, to all those who made me feel
so welcome; to Sierra and Sara, Lon and Bambam, Rafa and Lupe, Paz and Belen,
Tomas and Fede, Suso and San, Neko and Noas, Andres and Laura, Fernando and
Chus, Okuda and Fli, Manu and Marina. Thanks to Dems and Fefe, Momo and Lucas,
Pelucas and Tias, Ekta and Duncan, Isauro and Maf. A huge thanks to Sixe, to Nuri,
and to Margarita Skeeta. Y si se me olvida alguien, mil perdones.
My immense thanks go to my supervisor and mentor Professor Christopher
Pinney, without whom I would have never passed my Masters thesis, let alone
been accepted on my doctoral programme or completed this book. Since our
first meeting he has been a source of intense intellectual stimulation, of relentless
encouragement and support; I have been blessed by his presence during my
academic career to date and I hope our conversations will long continue. Alongside
his supervision have been a number of other important figures: Dr Paolo Favero,
Professor Susanne Kchler and Professor Michael Rowlands all gave me their time
and their thoughts during different stages of my PhD, all motivating me toward
a more insightful theoretical analysis. Thanks must also go to two omnipresent
figures during my time at UCL, the Postgraduate Coordinator Diana Goforth, and
the departmental technician Chris Hagisavva. Thanks to David for solving my
which/that issue (along with a hell of a lot more) and Els for generally helping me
to survive. Thanks to all my other amazing comrades from our time at UCL.
A million thanks to Nov York, aka Dumar Brown, aka Nov (aka Dumaar
Freemaninov), for his arresting, thoughtful foreword as well as the continual
inspiration he gives me. Thanks to El Mac for the opening epigraph.
Bibliography
Ameri, Amir H. 2005. On the Border of the Beautiful. Architectural Theory Review. 10(2):
1233.
Anderson, Farris. 1999. The City as Design for the Novel: Madrid in Fortunata y Jacinta.
Arizona Journal of Hispanic Cultural Studies. 3: 85103.
Andreotti, Libero. 2000. Play-Tactics of the Internationale Situationniste. October. 91:
3658.
Anzieu, Didier. 1984. The Group and the Unconscious. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Arditi, Benjamn. 2007. Politics on the Edges of Liberalism: Difference, Populism, Revolution,
Agitation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Arendt, Hannah. 2001 [1968]. The Crisis in Culture. In Beiner, Ronald, and Jennifer Nedelsky
(eds), Judgment, Imagination, and Politics: Themes from Kant and Arendt. Lanham, Md:
Rowman and Littlefield.
Arendt, Hannah, and Jerome Kohn. 1994. Essays in Understanding, 19301954. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and Co.
Armbrust, Walter. 1998. When the Lights Go Down in Cairo: Cinema as Secular Ritual. Visual
Anthropology. 10(2): 41342.
Asman, Carrie L. 1992. Theater and Agon/Agon and Theater: Walter Benjamin and Florens
Christian Rang. MLN. 107(3): 60624.
Aug, Marc. 1995. Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London:
Verso.
Austin, Joe. 2001. Taking the Train: How Graffiti Art Became an Urban Crisis in New York City.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to Do Things With Words: The William James Lectures
Delivered at Havard University in 1955. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Aycock, Alan. 1993. Derrida/Fort-da: Deconstructing Play. Postmodern Culture. 3(2).
Babcock, Barbara A. 1978. Introduction. In Barbara A. Babcock (ed.), The Reversible World:
Symbolic Inversion in Art and Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Babcock-Abrahams, Barbara. 1975. A Tolerated Margin of Mess: The Trickster and His Tales
Reconsidered. Journal of the Folklore Institute. 11(3): 14786.
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. 1984a. Rabelais and his World. H. Iswolsky (trans.).
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. 1984b. Problems of Dostoevskys Poetics. Caryl Emerson
(trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich and Michael Holquist. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four
Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bal, Mieke. 1996. Double Exposures: The Subject of Cultural Analysis. New York: Routledge.
Bal, Mieke. 1999. Introduction. In Bal, Mieke and Bryan Gonzales (eds), The Practice of
Cultural Analysis: Exposing Interdisciplinary Interpretation. Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press.
Ballinger, Franchot. 1991. Ambigere: The Euro-American Picaro and the Native American
Trickster. Melus. 17(1): 2138.
Barthes, Roland. 1991 [1979]. Cy Twombly: Works on Paper. The Responsibility of Forms:
Critical Essays on Music, Art, and Representation. Richard Howard (trans.). Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Bateson, Gregory. 2000 [1972]. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1993 [1976]. Kool Killer. Les graffiti de New York ou linsurrection par les
signes. Available at: www.lpdme.org/projects/jeanbaudrillard/koolkiller.zip. Accessed:
November 2011.
Bauman, Richard. 1992a. Folklore, Cultural Performances, and Popular Entertainments: A
Communications-Centered Handbook. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bauman, Richard. 1992b. Ritual Implicates Others: Rereading Durkheim in a Plural Society.
In Coppet, Daniel de (ed.), Understanding Rituals. London: Routledge.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1994. Desert Spectacular. In Tester, Keith (ed.), The Flneur. London:
Routledge.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1995. Life in Fragments: Essays in Postmodern Morality. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1995. Postmodern Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Becker, Howard S. 1960. Notes on the Concept of Commitment. American Journal of
Sociology. 66(1): 3240.
Beiner, Ronald. 2005. Our Relationship to Architecture as a Mode of Shared Citizenship:
Some Arendtian Thoughts. Techn. 9(Fall 2005/56): 1.
Bell, Catherine. 1997. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Belting, Hans. 1997. Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image Before the Era of Art.
Edmund Jephcott (trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Benedict, Ruth. 2005. Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Benhabib, Seyla. 1992. Models of Public Space. In Calhoun, Craig J. (ed.), Habermas and the
Public Sphere. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Benjamin, Walter, Edmund Jephcott, Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings. 2003.
The Paris of the Second Empire in Baudelaire. Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings. 4,
19381940. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Bibliography
251
Berman, Marshall. 1984. The Signs in the Street: A Response to Perry Anderson. New Left
Review. London.
Bernauer, James. 1988. Michael Foucaults Ecstatic Thinking. In Bernauer, James William and
David M. Rasmussen (eds), The Final Foucault. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Best, Steven and Douglas Kellner. 1991. Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations. New York:
Guilford Press.
Bhabha, Homi K. 1988. The Commitment to Theory. New Formations. 5: 523.
Bhabha, Homi K. 2004. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Bhabha, Homi. 2005. Adagio. Critical Inquiry. 31(2): 37180.
Bhabha, Homi. 2006. Boundaries. Differences. Passages. Conference Address. Available
at: http://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/fileadmin/downloads/Bhabha__Homi.pdf.
Accessed: 29 April 2011.
Bishop, Claire. 2004. Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics. October. 1(110): 5179.
Bishop, Claire. 2006. The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents. Artforum
International. 44(6): 178.
Bloch, Maurice. 1975. Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society. London:
Academic Press.
Bloch, Maurice. 1986. From Blessing to Violence: History and Ideology in the Circumcision Ritual
of the Merina at Madagascar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloch, Maurice. 1989 [1974]. Symbols, Song, Dance and Features of Articulation. In Bloch,
Maurice (ed.), Ritual, History, and Power: Selected Papers in Anthropology. London:
Athlone Press.
Bloch, Maurice. 2005. Essays on Cultural Transmission. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Boden, Margaret A. 1998. What is Creativity?. In Mithen, Steven J. (ed.), Creativity in Human
Evolution and Prehistory. London: Routledge.
Boer, Inge Erica, Mieke Bal and Patricia Spyer. 2006. Uncertain Territories: Boundaries in
Cultural Analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Bornstein, Erica. 2006. Rituals without Final Acts. In Engelke, Matthew Eric and Matt
Tomlinson (eds), The Limits of Meaning: Case Studies in the Anthropology of Christianity.
New York: Berghahn Books.
Bourriaud, Nicolas. 2002. Postproduction: Culture as Screenplay: How Art Reprograms the
World. Caroline Schneider and Jeanine Herman (trans). New York: Lukas & Sternberg.
Bourriaud, Nicolas. 2002. Relational Aesthetics. Paris: Les Presses du rel.
Bourriaud, Nicolas. 2009. Precarious Constructions: Answer to Jacques Rancire on Art and
Politics. Open 17. A Precarious Existence: Vulnerability in the Public Domain. Rotterdam:
NAI.
Boyne, Roy. 1990. Foucault and Derrida: The Other Side of Reason. London: Routledge.
Boyte, Harry C. 1992. The Pragmatic Ends of Popular Politics. In Calhoun, Craig J. (ed.),
Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Brady, John S. 2004. No Contest? Assessing the Agonistic Critiques of Jrgen Habermass
Theory of the Public Sphere. Philosophy & Social Criticism. 30(3): 33154.
Brett, David. 2005. Rethinking Decoration: Pleasure and Ideology in the Visual Arts. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Bibliography
253
Compitello, Malcolm Alan and Susan Larson. 2001. Cities, Culture Capital? Recent
Cultural Studies Approaches to Spains Cities. Journal of Spanish Cultural Studies. 2(2):
2318.
Conkey, Margaret W. 2006. Style, Design, and Function. In Tilley, Christopher Y. (ed.),
Handbook of Material Culture. London: Sage.
Connelly, Joan B. 1996. Parthenon and Parthenoi: A Mythological Interpretation of the
Parthenon Frieze. American Journal of Archaeology: The Journal of the Archaeological
Institute of America. 100(1): 53.
Connolly, William E. 2002. Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Press.
Connolly, William E., Samuel Allen Chambers and Terrell Carver. 2008. William E. Connolly:
Democracy, Pluralism and Political Theory. London: Routledge.
Cooke, Maeve. 1997. Language and Reason: A Study of Habermass Pragmatics. Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press.
Cooke, Maeve. 2000. Introduction. Habermas, Jrgen and Maeve Cooke. On the Pragmatics
of Communication. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. 1939. Ornament. Art Bulletin. 21(4): 37582.
Cooper, Martha and Henry Chalfant. 1984. Subway Art. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Cornford, Francis Macdonald. 1912. The Origin of the Olympic Games. Harrison, Jane Ellen.
1912. Themis, a Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion. With an Excursus on the Ritual
Forms Preserved in Greek Tragedy by Gilbert Murray and a Chapter on the Origin of the
Olympic Games by F.M. Cornford. Cambridge: University Press.
Crowther, Paul. 2002. The Transhistorical Image: Philosophizing Art and its History. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1992. Flow: The Psychology of Happiness. London: Rider.
Csordas, Thomas J. 1997. Language, Charisma, and Creativity the Ritual Life of a Religious
Movement. Berkeley: University of California Press.
DaMatta, Roberto. 1991. Carnivals, Rogues, and Heroes: An Interpretation of the Brazilian
Dilemma. London, University of Notre Dame Press.
Das, Veena. 1998. Wittgenstein and Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology. 27:
17195.
Debord, Guy. 1983 [1967]. Society of the Spectacle. Fredy Perlman and John Supak (trans).
Detroit: Black & Red.
Debord, Guy. 2009 [1956]. A Users Guide to Dtournement. In Evans, David (ed.),
Appropriation. London: Whitechapel.
Derrida, Jacques. 2004 [1981]. Positions. Alan Bass and Christopher Norris (trans). London:
Continuum.
Derrida, Jacques. 2001 [1967]. Writing and Difference. Alan Bass (trans.). London: Routledge.
Derrida, Jacques. 1979. The Parergon. Craig Owens (trans.). October. 9: 341.
Derrida, Jacques and John D. Caputo. 1997. Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with
Jacques Derrida. New York: Fordham University Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 1977. Limited Inc. Samuel Weber and Jeffrey Mehlman (trans). Evanston:
Northwestern University Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 1981 [1972]. Dissemination. Barbara Johnson (trans.). Chicago: University
Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 1987. The Truth in Painting. Geoff Benington and Ian McLeod (trans).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 1998 [1967]. Of Grammatology. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (trans.).
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Deutsche, Rosalyn. 1986. Krzysztof Wodiczkos Homeless Projection and the Site of Urban
Revitalization. October. 38: 6398.
Deutsche, Rosalyn. 1992. Art and Public Space: Questions of Democracy. Social Text. (33):
3453.
Deutsche, Rosalyn. 1998. Evictions: Art and Spatial Politics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Deutsche, Rosalyn. 2000. Democratic Public Space. Ockman, Joan. The Pragmatist
Imagination: Thinking About Things in the Making. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Dirks, Nicholas B. 1994. Ritual and Resistance. In Dirks, Nicholas B., Geoff Eley and Sherry
B. Ortner, Culture/Power/History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Dissanayake, Ellen. 1995. Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes From and Why. Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New
York: Praeger.
Douglas, Mary. 1996 [1973]. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. London: Routledge.
Douglas, Mary. 2007. A History of Grid and Group Cultural Theory. Available at: www.chass.
utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/douglas1.pdf. Accessed: 29 April 2011.
Drexler, Jane M. and Michael Roy Hames-Garcia. 2005. Disruption and Democracy:
Challenges to Consensus and Communication. Good Society. 13(2): 56.
Droogers, Andr. 2005. Enjoying an Emergent Alternative World: Ritual in its own Ludic
Right. In Handelman, Don and Galina Lindquist (eds), Ritual in its Own Right: Exploring
the Dynamics of Transformation. New York: Berghahn Books.
Duncan, Carol. 1995. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. London: Routledge.
Durkheim, mile. 1976 [1912]. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. London: Allen and
Unwin.
Ehrmann, Jacques, Cathy Lewis and Phil Lewis. 1968. Homo Ludens Revisited. Yale French
Studies. (41): 3157.
Elkins, James. 2007. The End of the Theory of the Gaze. Available at: www.jameselkins.com.
Accessed: November 2011.
Elsner, Ja. 2006. From Empirical Evidence to the Big Picture: Some Reflections on Riegls
Concept of Kunstwollen. Critical Inquiry. 32(4): 74166.
Elsner, Ja. 2007. Roman Eyes: Visuality and Subjectivity in Art and Text. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Ephratt, Michal. 2008. The Functions of Silence. Journal of Pragmatics. 40: 190938.
Escobar, Jesus. 2003. The Plaza Mayor and the Shaping of Baroque Madrid. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Escobar, Jesus. 2004. Francisco de Sotomayor and Nascent Urbanism in Sixteenth-Century
Madrid. The Sixteenth Century Journal. 35(2): 357.
Bibliography
255
Evens, T.M.S. 2009. Anthropology as Ethics: Nondualism and the Conduct of Sacrifice. New
York: Berghahn Books.
Fernndez-Galiano, Luis. 2004. Tapia y Tapiz/Wall and Tapestry. Available at: http://
ciudaddelflamenco.jerez.es. Accessed: November 2011.
Ferrell, Jeff and Clinton Sanders. 1995. Cultural Criminology. Boston: Northeastern University
Press.
Ferrell, Jeff and Mark S. Hamm. 1998. Ethnography at the Edge: Crime, Deviance, and Field
Research. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Ferrell, Jeff. 1996. Crimes of Style: Urban Graffiti and the Politics of Criminality. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.
Fischer-Lichte, Erika. 2005. Theatre, Sacrifice, Ritual: Exploring Forms of Political Theatre.
London: Routledge.
Fleming, David. 1998. The Space of Argumentation: Urban Design, Civic Discourse, and the
Dream of the Good City. Argumentation. 12(2): 147.
Fleming, Juliet. 2001. Graffiti and the Writing Arts of Early Modern England. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Florida, Richard. 2004. Cities and the Creative Class. London: Routledge.
Florida, Richard L. 2009. Whos Your City?: How the Creative Economy is Making Where to Live
the Most Important Decision of Your Life. Toronto: Vintage Canada.
Folena, Lucia. 1989. Figures of Violence: Philologists, Witches and Stalinistas. In Armstrong,
Nancy and Leonard Tennenhouse (eds), The Violence of Representation: Literature and the
History of Violence. London: Routledge.
Foster, Hal. 1995. The Artist as Ethnographer?. In Marcus, George E. and Fred R. Myers (eds),
The Traffic in Culture: Refiguring Art and Anthropology. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Foster, Hal. 2002. Design and Crime: And Other Diatribes. London: Verso.
Foster, Hal. 2004. Prosthetic Gods. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Foucault, Michel and Paul Rabinow. 1984. The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, Michel. 2007. The Politics of Truth. Sylvre Lotringer and Lysa Hochroth (trans).
Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).
Foucault, Michel. 1982. The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry. 8(4): 77795.
Fraenkel, Batrice. 2010. Acts of Writing: When Writing is Doing. In Barton, David and Uta
Papen (eds), The Anthropology of Writing: Understanding Textually Mediated Worlds.
London: Continuum.
Fraser, Benjamin. 2006. The Space in Film and the Film in Space: Madrids Retiro Park and
Carlos Sauras Taxi. Studies in Hispanic Cinemas. 3(1): 1532.
Fraser, Nancy. 1992. Rethinking the Public Sphere. In Calhoun, Craig J. (ed.), Habermas and
the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Freire, Paulo. 2000 [1967]. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Friedman, Jonathan. 2001. The Iron Cage of Creativity: An Exploration. In J. Liep (ed.),
Locating Cultural Creativity. London: Pluto Press.
Fultner, Barbara. 2002. Translators Introduction. In Habermas, Jrgen (ed.), On the
Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative
Action. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Fultner, Barbara. 2003. Translators Introduction. In Habermas, Jrgen and Barbara Fultner,
Truth and Justification. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Gardiner, Michael E. 2004. Wild Publics and Grotesque Symposiums: Habermas and Bakhtin
on Dialogue, Everyday Life and the Public Sphere. The Sociological Review. 52(s1): 2848.
Gaudreault, Andr and Tim Barnard. 2009. From Plato to Lumire: Narration and Monstration
in Literature and Cinema. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Geertz, Clifford. 1972. Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight. Daedalus. 101(1): 137.
Gell, Alfred. 1999. The Art of Anthropology: Essays and Diagrams. Eric Hirsch (ed.). London:
Athlone Press.
Gell, Alfred. 1988. Technology and Magic. Anthropology Today. 4(2): 69.
Gell, Alfred. 1993. Wrapping in Images: Tattooing in Polynesia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gell, Alfred. 1996. Vogels Net: Traps as Artworks and Artworks as Traps. Journal of Material
Culture. 1(1): 1538.
Gell, Alfred. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gielen, Pascal. 2009. The Art Scene: An Ideal Production Unit for Economic Exploitation. In
Bourriaud, Nicolas et al. (eds), A Precarious Existence: Vulnerability in the Public Domain.
Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.
Gillick, Liam. 2006. Letters and Responses. October. 1(115): 95106.
Gladwell, Malcolm. 2008. Outliers: The Story of Success. New York: Little, Brown and Co.
Gluckman, Max. 1963. Order and Rebellion in Tribal Africa: Collected Essays with an
Autobiographical Introduction by Max Gluckman. New York: Free Press of Glenco.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goldhill, Simon and Robin Osborne. 1999. Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gombrich, Ernst H. 1956. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation.
London: Phaidon.
Gombrich, Ernst Hans. 1979. Exchange with Henri Zerner on the Sense of Order. The New
York Review of Books. 27 September, 26(14): 6061.
Gombrich, Ernst Hans. 1984 [1979]. The Sense of Order. Oxford: Phaidon.
Goodman, Nelson. 1968. Language of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis:
New York.
Goodnight, G. Thomas. 1992. Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Controversy. International
Journal of Public Opinion Research. 4(3).
Goodnight, G. Thomas. 1997. Opening up the Spaces Of Public Dissension.
Communication Monographs. 64(3): 2705.
Goody, Jack. 1977. Against Ritual: Loosely Structured Thoughts on a Loosely Defined
Topic. In Moore, Sally Falk and Barbara G. Myerhoff (eds), Secular Ritual. Assen: Van
Gorcum.
Goodyear, William Henry. 1894. Renaissance and Modern Art. Meadville, PA: Flood and
Vincent.
Grabar, Oleg. 1992. The Mediation of Ornament. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bibliography
257
Grebowicz, Margret. 2007. Standpoint Theory and the Possibility of Justice: A Lyotardian
Critique of the Democratization of Knowledge. Hypatia. 22(4): 1629.
Greenblatt, Stephen. 2004 [1985]. Invisible Bullets. In McDonald, Russ (ed.), Shakespeare: An
Anthology of Criticism and Theory, 19452000. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Groth, J. and E. Corijn. 2005. Reclaiming Urbanity: Indeterminate Spaces, Informal Actors
and Urban Agenda Setting. Urban Studies. 42(3): 50326.
Groys, Boris. 2010. Going Public. Berlin: Sternberg Press.
Habermas, Jrgen. 1974. The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964). Sara Lennox
and Frank Lennox (trans). New German Critique. (3): 4955.
Habermas, Jrgen. 1987a [1981]. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Thomas
McCarthy (trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, Jrgen. 1987b [1981]. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason.
Thomas McCarthy (trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, Jrgen. 1991 [1962]. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry
into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Thomas Burger with Frederick Lawrence (trans).
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Habermas, Jrgen. 1992. Further Reflections on the Public Sphere. In Calhoun, Craig J. (ed.),
Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Habermas, Jrgen and Maeve Cooke. 2000. On the Pragmatics of Communication.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Habermas, Jrgen. 2002. On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the
Theory of Communicative Action. Barbara Fultner (trans.). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Habermas, Jrgen. 2003. Truth and Justification. Barbara Fultner (trans.). Cambridge, Mass:
MIT Press.
Habermas, J. 2004. Public Space and Political Public Sphere The Biographical Roots of
Two Motifs in My Thought. Commemorative Lecture, Kyoto, 11 November. Available at:
homepage.mac.com/gedavis/JH/Kyoto_lecture_Nov_2004.pdf. Accessed: November
2011.
Halbwachs, Maurice. 1980. The Collective Memory. New York: Harper & Row.
Hall, Stuart, David Morley and Kuan-Hsing Chen. 1996. Stuart Hall Critical Dialogues in
Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.
Hallam, Elizabeth and Tim Ingold. 2007. Creativity and Cultural Improvisation: An
Introduction. In Hallam, Elizabeth and Tim Ingold, Creativity and Cultural Improvisation.
Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Handelman, Don. 1998. Models and Mirrors: Towards an Anthropology of Public Events. New
York: Berghahn Books.
Harrison, Jane Ellen. 1913. Ancient Art and Ritual. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
Harvey, David. 2000. Spaces of Hope. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Heilman, Robert Bechtold. 1991. The Workings of Fiction: Essays. Columbia, MO: University of
Missouri Press.
Hermer, Joe and Alan Hunt. 1996. Official Graffiti of the Everyday. Law and Society Review.
30(3): 45580.
Hersey, George L. 1988. The Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture: Speculations on Ornament
from Vitruvius to Venturi. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Herzog, Jacques and Chevrier, Jean-Francois. 2006. Ornament, Structure, Space. El Croquis.
(129): 22.
Herzfeld, Michael. 2006. Spatial Cleansing Monumental Vacuity and the Idea of the West.
Journal of Material Culture. 11(1/2): 12750.
Hill, Jonathan. 1998a. The Illegal Architect. London: Black Dog Publishing.
Hill, Jonathan. 1998b. Occupying Architecture: Between the Architect and the User. London:
Routledge.
Hill, Jonathan. 2006. Immaterial Architecture. London: Routledge.
Hillier, Jean. 2003. Agonizing Over Consensus: Why Habermasian Ideals Cannot be Real.
Planning Theory. 2(1): 3759.
Hinderliter, Beth. 2009. Communities of Sense: Rethinking Aesthetics and Politics. Durham:
Duke University Press.
Hirsch, Eric and Sharon Macdonald. 2007. Introduction: Creativity and the Passage of Time.
In Hallam, Elizabeth and Tim Ingold (eds), Creativity and Cultural Improvisation. Oxford:
Berg Publishers.
Hobsbawm, E.J. 1969. Bandits. New York: Delacorte Press.
Hobsbawm, E.J. and T.O. Ranger. 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hodder, Ian. 1998. Creative Thought: A Long Term Perspective. In Mithen, Steven J. (ed.),
Creativity in Human Evolution and Prehistory. London: Routledge.
Holquist, Michael. 1986. The Surd Heard. In Morson, Gary Saul (ed.), Literature and History:
Theoretical Problems and Russian Case Studies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Holquist, Michael. 2002. Dialogism: Bakhtin and his World. London: Routledge.
Holston, James. 1999. Cities and Citizenship. Durham: Duke University Press.
Honig, Bonnie. 1993. The Politics of Agonism: A Critical Response to Beyond Good and Evil:
Arendt, Nietzsche, and the Aestheticization of Political Action by Dana R. Villa. Political
Theory. 21(3): 52833.
Hornsby, Jennifer and Guy Longworth. 2006. Reading Philosophy of Language: Selected Texts
with Interactive Commentary. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Pub.
Howe, Leo. 2000. Risk, Ritual and Performance. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.
6(1): 6379.
Hughes-Freeland, Elizabeth. 2007. Tradition and Individual Talent: TS Eliot for
Anthropologists. In Hallam, Elizabeth and Tim Ingold (eds), Creativity and Cultural
Improvisation. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Hughes-Freeland, Felicia. 2007. Ritual, Performance, Media. London: Routledge.
Huizinga, Johan. 2003 [1944]. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. London:
Routledge.
Humphrey, Caroline and James Laidlaw. 1994. The Archetypal Actions of Ritual: A Theory of
Ritual Illustrated by the Jain Rite of Worship. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ingram, David. 1991. Habermas on Aesthetics and Rationality: Completing the Project of
Enlightenment. New German Critique. (53): 67103.
Innis, Robert E. 2005. The Tacit Logic of Ritual Embodiments: Rappaport and Polanyi
between Thick and Thin. In Handelman, Don and Galina Lindquist (eds), Ritual in its Own
Right: Exploring the Dynamics of Transformation. New York: Berghahn Books.
Bibliography
259
Johnson, Barbara. 1987. A World of Difference. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Johnson, Pauline. 2006. Habermas: Rescuing the Public Sphere. London: Routledge.
Jones, Owen. 2007 [1856]. The Grammar of Ornament: Illustrated by Examples from Various
Styles of Ornament. Paris: LAventurine.
Kapferer, Bruce. 1977. First Class to Maradana. Secular Drama in Sinhalese Healing Rites. In
Moore, Sally Falk and Barbara G. Myerhoff (eds), Secular Ritual. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Kapferer, Bruce. 2005. Ritual Dynamics and Virtual Practice. In Handelman, Don and Galina
Lindquist (eds), Ritual in its Own Right: Exploring the Dynamics of Transformation. New
York: Berghahn Books.
Keesing, Roger M. 1991. Experiments in Thinking About Ritual. Canberra Anthropology.
14(2): 6074.
Kellner, Douglas. 2000. Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical
Intervention. In Hahn, Lewis Edwin (ed.), Perspectives on Habermas. Chicago, Ill: Open
Court.
Kelly, John D. and Martha Kaplan. 1990. History, Structure, and Ritual. Annual Review of
Anthropology. 19: 119150.
Kester, Grant H. 2004. Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kipnis, Jefferey. 1997. The Cunning of Cosmetics. In Levene, R.C. and Mrquez, Cecilia F.
(eds), Herzog & de Meuron, 19931997. Madrid: El Croquis Editorial.
Kostof, Spiro K. 1992. The City Assembled: The Elements of Urban Form Through History.
London: Thames and Hudson.
Kwon, Miwon. 1998. For Hamburg: Public Art and Urban Identities. Public Art is Everywhere.
Hamburg, Germany: Kunstverein Hamburg and Kulturbehrde Hamburg, 95109.
Kwon, Miwon. 2004. One Place After Another: Site-Specific Art and Locational Identity.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Kchler, Susanne. 1988. Malangan: Objects, Sacrifice and the Production of Memory.
American Ethnologist: The Journal of the American Ethnological Society. 15: 62537.
Kchler, Susanne. 1994. Making Skins: Malangan and Kinship. In Coote, Jeremy and
Anthony Shelton (eds), Anthropology, Art, and Aesthetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kchler, Susanne. 2001. The Place of Memory. In Forty, Adrian and Susanne Kchler, The Art
of Forgetting. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Lachmann, Renate, Raoul Eshelman and Marc Davis. 1989. Bakhtin and Carnival: Culture as
Counter-Culture. Cultural Critique. (11): 11552.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Larson, Susan. 2003. Shifting Modern Identities in Madrids Recent Urban Planning,
Architecture and Narrative. Cities. 20(6): 395402.
Latour, Bruno, Peter Weibel, Luc Boltanski, Dario Gamboni, Sophie Ristelhueber, MarieJos Mondzain, Peter Sloterdijk, Hans Belting and Hans-Ulrich Obrist. 2002. Iconoclash:
Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion, and Art: Exposition, ZKM, Center for Art and
Media, Karlsruhe, du 4 mai au 4 aot 2002. Karlsruhe: ZKM.
Layton, Robert. 2003. Art and Agency: A Reassessment. The Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute. 9(3): 44764.
Le Corbusier. 1925. The Decorative Arts of Today. In Risselada, Max, Adolf Loos and Le
Corbusier. 2008. Raumplan Versus Plan Libre. Rotterdam: 010 Uitgeverij.
Leach, Edmund Ronald. 1977. Custom, Law, and Terrorist Violence. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Loos, Adolf, Adolf Opel and Daniel Opel. 2002. On Architecture. Riverside, CA: Ariadne Press.
Lubich, Frederick Alfred. 1999. Introduction. In Mann, Thomas (ed.), Death in Venice, Tonio
Krger, and Other Writings. New York: Continuum.
Lyotard, Jean Franois. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Geoffrey
Bennington and Brian Massumi (trans). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lyotard, Jean Franois. 1988. The Differend Phrases in Dispute. Georges Van Den Abbeele
(trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lyotard, Jean-Franois. 1993. The Postmodern Explained: Correspondence, 19821985. Don
Barry et al. (trans). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lyotard, Jean-Franois. 1989. The Lyotard Reader. Andrew E. Benjamin (trans.). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Lyotard, Jean-Franois and Jean-Loup Thbaud. 1985. Just Gaming. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Lyotard, Jean-Franois, Keith Crome and James Williams. 2006. The Lyotard Reader and
Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Lvi-Strauss, Claude. 1963. Structural Anthropology. Monique Layton (trans.). New York: Basic
Books.
Lvi-Strauss, Claude. 1989 [1966]. The Savage Mind. John and Doreen Weightman (trans).
London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Macdonald, Nancy. 2001. The Graffiti Subculture: Youth, Masculinity, and Identity in London
and New York. New York: Palgrave.
MacLeod, Gordon and Kevin Ward. 2002. Spaces of Utopia and Dystopia: Landscaping the
Contemporary City. Geografiska Annaler. Series B: Human Geography. 84(3): 15370.
Mahall, Mona and Asli Serbest. 2009. How Architecture Learned to Speculate. Stuttgart:
published by Gerd de Bruyn for Institut Grundlagen moderner Architektur und
Entwerfen (IGMA), Universitt Stuttgart.
Maiorino, Giancarlo. 1996. The Picaresque: Tradition and Displacement. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Maiorino, Giancarlo. 2003. At the Margins of the Renaissance: Lazarillo de Tormes and the
Picaresque Art of Survival. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Markell, P. 1997. Contesting Consensus: Rereading Habermas on the Public Sphere.
Constellations. Oxford. 3(3): 377400.
Martnez, Javier Gimeno. 2006. Designing Symbols: The Logos of the Spanish Autonomous
Communities (19771991). Journal of Spanish Cultural Studies. 7(1): 5174.
Matta, Roberto da. 1991. Carnivals, Rogues, and Heroes: An Interpretation of the Brazilian
Dilemma. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
McCarthy, Thomas. 1991. Introduction. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An
Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bibliography
261
Merrifield, Andy. 1996. Public Space: Integration and Exclusion in Urban Life. London: City.
Merrifield, Andy. 2005. Metropolitan Birth Pangs: Reflections on Lefebvres The Urban
Revolution. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 29(3): 693702.
Miller, Daniel (ed.). 2005. Materiality. Durham: Duke University Press.
Mitchell, W.J.T. 1994. Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Moore, Ben. 2011. Francis Terry The Leake Street Classicist. Available at: http://www.
artbelow.org.uk/ab/Gallery.action?galleryId=79. Accessed: 29 April 2011.
Moore, Sally Falk and Barbara G. Myerhoff. 1977. Secular Ritual. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Morson, Gary Saul and Caryl Emerson. 1990. Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Mouffe, Chantal. 2001. Every Form of Art has a Political Dimension. Grey Room. 1(2): 98125.
Mouffe, Chantal. 2002. Politics and Passions. Philosophy and Social Criticism. 28(6).
Mouffe, Chantal. 2005a [2000]. The Democratic Paradox. London and New York: Verso.
Mouffe, Chantal. 2005b. On the Political. London: Routledge.
Mouffe, Chantal. 2008. Art and Democracy: Art as Agnostic Intervention in Public Space. In
Mouffe, Chantal, Jorinde Seijdel and Liesbeth Melis, Art as a Public Issue: How Art and its
Institutions Reinvent the Public Dimension. Rotterdam: NAi.
Moughtin, Cliff, Taner Oc and Steven Tiesdell. 1999. Urban Design: Ornament and Decoration.
Oxford: Architectural Press.
Moussavi, Farshid and Michael Kubo. 2006. The Function of Ornament. Barcelona: Actar.
Muir, Edward. 1999. Carnival. In Grendler, Paul F. (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Renaissance.
New York: Scribners.
Mucha, Jiri. 1966. Alphonse Mucha: His Life and Art. London: Heinemann.
Muir, Edward. 2005. Ritual in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Mulvey, Laura. 1975. Visual and Other Pleasures. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Mumford, Stan. 1989. Himalayan Dialogue: Tibetan Lamas and Gurung Shamans in Nepal.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Murphy, Peter. 2001. Civic Justice: From Greek Antiquity to the Modern World. Amherst, NY:
Humanity Books.
Needham, Rodney. 1975. Polythetic Classification: Convergence and Consequences. Man.
10(3): 34969.
Newman, Saul. 2001. Derridas Deconstruction of Authority. Philosophy and Social Criticism.
27(3): 120.
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, Bernard Arthur Owen Williams, Josefine Nauckhoff and Adrian
Del Caro. 2001. The Gay Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. 1997. Homers Contest. In Lungstrum, Janet and Elizabeth
Sauer (eds), Agonistics Arenas of Creative Contest. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Norris, Christopher. 1987. Derrida. London: Fontana.
OConnor, Justin. 2007. The Cultural and Creative Industries: A Review of the Literature: A
Report for Creative Partnerships. London: Creative Partnerships, Arts Council England.
OConnor, Justin and Derek Wynne. 1996. From the Margins to the Centre: Cultural Production
and Consumption in the Post-Industrial City. Aldershot, Hants, UK: Arena.
Ostrow, Saul. 2001. Introduction. In Woodfield, Richard and Hans Sedlmayr (eds), Framing
Formalism: Riegls Work. Amsterdam: G+B Arts International.
Peck, Jamie. 2005. Struggling with the Creative Class. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research. 29(4): 74070.
Phillips, Susan A. 1999. Wallbangin: Graffiti and Gangs in L.A. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Phillips, Tom. 2003. The Nature of Ornament: A Summary Treatise. Available at: http://www.
tomphillips.co.uk/publications/item/5311-the-nature-of-ornament-a-summary-treatise.
Accessed: November 2011.
Pickett, Brent L. 1996. Foucault and the Politics of Resistance. Polity. 28(4): 44566.
Picon, Antoine and Alessandra Ponte. 2003. Architecture and the Sciences: Exchanging
Metaphors. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Pinney, Christopher. 1997. Camera Indica: The Social Life of Indian Photographs. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Pinney, Christopher. 2001. Piercing the Skin of the Idol. In Pinney, Christopher and Nicholas
Thomas, Beyond Aesthetics: Art and the Technologies of Enchantment. Oxford: Berg
Publishing.
Pinney, Christopher. 2002. Creole Europe: The Reflection of a Reflection. Journal of New
Zealand Literature: JNZL. (20): 12561.
Plato. 1997. Republic. John Llewelyn Davies and David James Vaughan (trans). Ware,
England: Wordsworth Editions.
Plger, John. 2004. Strife: Urban Planning and Agonism. Planning Theory. 3(1): 7192.
Powers, Stephen. 1999. The Art of Getting Over: Graffiti at the Millennium. New York: St
Martins Press.
Rappaport, Roy A. 1979. Ecology, Meaning, and Religion. Richmond, CA: North Atlantic Books.
Rappaport, Roy A. 1999. Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Rapport, Nigel. 1997. Transcendent Individual: Towards a Literary and Liberal Anthropology.
London: Routledge.
Readings, Bill. 1991. Introducing Lyotard: Art and Politics. London: Routledge.
Riegl, Alois and David Castriota. 1992 [1893]. Problems of Style: Foundations for a History of
Ornament. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rodrguez-Luis, Julio. 1979. Pcaras: The Modal Approach to the Picaresque. Comparative
Literature. 31(1): 3246.
Rosaldo, Renato. 1993. Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Ross, Toni. 2009. From Classical to Postclassical Beauty: Institutional Critique and Aesthetic
Enigma in Louise Lawlers Photography. In Hinderliter, Beth (ed.), Communities of Sense:
Rethinking Aesthetics and Politics. Durham: Duke University Press.
Bibliography
263
Smith, N.V. 2004. Chomsky Ideas and Ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spariosu, Mihai. 1991. God of Many Names: Play, Poetry, and Power in Hellenic Thought from
Homer to Aristotle. Durham: Duke University Press.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1998 [1967]. Translators Preface. In Derrida, Jacques, Of
Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Spyer, Patricia. 1998. Border Fetishisms: Material Objects in Unstable Spaces. New York:
Routledge.
Spyer, Patricia. 2000. The Memory of Trade: Modernitys Entanglements on an Eastern
Indonesian Island. Durham: Duke University Press.
Spyer, Patricia. 2008. Christ at Large: Iconography and Territoriality in Postwar Ambon. In
Vries, Hent de. (ed.), Religion: Beyond a Concept. New York: Fordham University Press.
Stallybrass, Peter and Allon White. 1986. The Politics and Poetics of Transgression. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Stewart, Janet. 2000. Fashioning Vienna: Adolf Looss Cultural Criticism. London: Routledge.
Strathern, Andrew J. and Pamela J. Stewart. 1998. Embodiment and Communication: Two
Frames for the Analysis of Ritual. Social Anthropology. 6: 23751.
Suber, Peter. 2005. Promoting Open Access in the Humanities. Syllecta Classica. 16: 23146.
Sutton-Smith, Brian. 1997. The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Swyngedouw, Erik and Maria Kaka. 2003. The Making of Glocal Urban Modernities. City.
7(1): 521.
Tambiah, Stanley Jeyaraja. 1985. Culture, Thought, and Social Action: An Anthropological
Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tambiah, Stanley Jeyaraja. 1996. Leveling Crowds Ethnonationalist Conflicts and Collective
Violence in South Asia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Tannen, Ricki Stefanie. 2007. The Female Trickster: The Mask that Reveals: Post-Jungian and
Postmodern Psychological Perspectives on in Contemporary Culture. London: Routledge.
Taussig, Michael. 1998. Crossing the Face. In Spyer, Patricia (ed.), Border Fetishisms: Material
Objects in Unstable Spaces. New York: Routledge.
Thiele, Leslie Paul. 1990. Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of the Soul: A Study of Heroic
Individualism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tilley, Christopher Y. 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Tilley, Christopher Y. 2008. Body and Image Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology.
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Trilling, James. 2003. Ornament: A Modern Perspective. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Turnbull, Colin. 1990. Liminality. In Schechner, Richard and Willa Appel (eds), By Means
of Performance: Intercultural Studies of Theatre and Ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Turner, Victor Witter. 1967. The Forest of Symbols; Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Turner, Victor Witter. 1968. Schism and Continuity in an African Society. Published on behalf
of the Institute for Social Research, University of Zambia, by Manchester University
Press.
Bibliography
265
Turner, Victor Witter. 1975. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Turner, Victor Witter. 1977. Ndembu Divination and its Symbolism. In Landy, David. (ed.),
Culture, Disease, and Healing: Studies in Medical Anthropology. New York: Macmillan.
Turner, Victor Witter. 1979a. Frame, Flow and Reflection: Ritual and Drama as Public
Liminality. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies. 6(4).
Turner, Victor Witter. 1979b. Process, Performance, and Pilgrimage: A Study in Comparative
Symbology. New Delhi: Concept.
Turner, Victor Witter. 1980. Social Dramas and Stories About Them. Critical Inquiry. 7(1):
14168.
Turner, Victor Witter. 1982a. From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York
City: Performing Arts Journal Publications.
Turner, Victor Witter. 1982b. Images of Anti-Temporality: An Essay in the Anthropology of
Experience. The Harvard Theological Review. 75(2): 24365.
Turner, Victor Witter. 1983. Carnival in Rio: Dionysian Drama in an Industrializing Society. In
Manning, Frank E. (ed.), The Celebration of Society: Perspectives on Contemporary Cultural
Performance. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press.
Turner, Victor Witter. 1986. The Anthropology of Performance. New York: PAJ Publications.
Turner, Victor Witter. 1990. Are their Universals in Performance. In Schechner, Richard and
Willa Appel (eds), By Means of Performance: Intercultural Studies of Theatre and Ritual.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, Victor Witter. 1995 [1969]. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Co.
Turner, Victor Witter. 2002. Passages, Margins, and Poverty: Religious Symbols in
Communitas. In Vincent, Joan (ed.),The Anthropology of Politics: A Reader in Ethnography,
Theory, and Critique. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Tuzin, Donald. 2002. Art, Ritual, and the Crafting of Illusion. The Asia Pacific Journal of
Anthropology. 3(1): 123.
Urry, John. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage
Publications.
Vanderveken, Daniel and Susumu Kubo. 2002. Essays in Speech Act Theory. Amsterdam: J.
Benjamins Publishing Co.
Venturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour. 1972. Learning from Las Vegas.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Venturi, Robert and Ariel Ben-Amos. 2004. Venturi and Scott Brown. The Philadelphia
Independent. Spring 2004, 3.
Villa, Dana R. 1992a. Beyond Good and Evil: Arendt, Nietzsche, and the Aestheticization of
Political Action. Political Theory. 20(2): 274308.
Villa, Dana R. 1992b. Postmodernism and the Public Sphere. The American Political Science
Review. 86(3): 71221.
Vinograd, Richard. 1988. Situation and Response in Traditional Chinese Scholar Painting.
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 46(3): 36574.
Ward, Barbara E. 1979. Not Merely Players: Drama, Art and Ritual in Traditional China. Man.
14(1): 1839.
Warner, Michael. 2002. Publics and Counterpublics (abbreviated version). Quarterly Journal
of Speech. 88(4): 41325.
Warnke, Georgina. 1988. David Ingrams Habermas and the Dialectic of Reason. Praxis
International. 8: 1.
Weber, Donald. 1995. From Limen to Border: A Meditation on the Legacy of Victor Turner
for American Cultural Studies. American Quarterly. 47(3): 525.
Weibel, Peter. 2005. Art and Democracy. Latour, Bruno and Peter Weibel. Making Things
Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Werbner, Pnina. 2001. The Limits of Cultural Hybridity: On Ritual Monsters, Poetic Licence
and Contested Postcolonial Purifications. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.
7(1): 13352.
Werbner, Richard P. 1989. Ritual Passage, Sacred Journey: The Process and Organization of
Religious Movement. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
White, Eric, Geoffrey Bennington, David Carroll, Jean-Franois Lyotard, Cecile Lindsay, Eddie
Yeghiayan and George van den Abbeele. 1994. Lyotards Neo-Sophistic Philosophy of
Phrases. Poetics Today. 15(3): 47993.
Wigley, Mark. 1987. Postmortem Architecture: The Taste of Derrida. Perspecta. 23: 15672.
Wigley, Mark. 1988. The Displacement of Structure and Ornament in the Frankfurt Project:
An Interview. Assemblage. (5): 517.
Wigley, Mark. 1992. Theoretical Slippage. Fetish. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural
Press.
Wigley, Mark. 1993. White-out: Fashioning the Modern [Part 2]. Assemblage. (22): 649.
Wilson, James and George Kelling. 1982. Broken Windows. Atlantic Monthly. 249(3): 2936,
38.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, James Carl Klagge and Alfred Nordmann. 1993. Philosophical
Occasions, 19121951. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Co.
Wright, Frank Lloyd. 2005. Frank Lloyd Wright: An Autobiography. Petaluma: Pomegranate.
Young, Iris Marion. 2002. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Young, Robert. 1995. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture, and Race. London:
Routledge.
Zaidman, Louise Bruit and Pauline Schmitt Pantel. 1992. Religion in the Ancient Greek City.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zukin, Sharon. 1993. Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Index
10Foot 124
3TTMan (Louis) xxii, 1821, 42, 44, 50,
545, 65, 67, 735, 77, 8082, 137,
1534, 157, 162, 164, 166, 168, 183,
192, 1949, 207, 210, 232, 247
Abarca, Javier 19
acid etching 212, 48, 108
acropolis 8, 10
Adams, John 26
adbusting 19
addiction 267, 208
adjunctive xxv, xxvii, 2021, 256, 29, 36,
39, 40, 42, 51, 53, 78, 81, 84, 115, 155,
245
Adorno 70
aesthetic v, xxi, xxiv, xxviixxviii, 35,
1112, 16, 21, 26, 28, 3032, 42, 48,
64, 70, 72, 88, 92, 96, 1068, 112,
11516, 118, 120, 124, 126, 1289,
1334, 138, 146, 14950, 1534,
1589, 1612, 164, 169, 174, 180,
186, 192, 198, 2078, 210, 126, 219,
2224, 2312, 236, 238, 24041,
2434
agency xxvi, 16, 324, 39, 40, 44, 47, 81,
106, 115, 156, 158, 173, 180, 200,
240, 243
agon 912, 95, 99, 1089, 114, 11718,
156, 208, 216
agonism xvii, 51, 92, 100, 102, 104, 109,
112, 114, 125, 234
agonistic xvi, xvii, xxii, xxvii, 4751, 61,
68, 75, 77, 88, 912, 957, 99104,
10620, 1246, 1289, 134, 146,
1526, 163, 174, 17980, 182219,
221, 2234, 234
Agonistic Pluralism 48, 100, 104, 126
Bill posters 39
Bishop, Claire
Relational Antagonism 126
Bloch, Maurice 60, 140, 2036
communicative dialogism 204
illocutionary 203
restricted codes 203
ritual 2034
Boden, Margaret 207
Bogota (Columbia) 225
bombing xxii, 15
Bornstein, Erica 173
Bourdieu 134
Bourriaud, Nicolas 19, 126, 128
postproduction 19
Boyte, Harry C. 56
Brett, David 4, 212, 267, 32
applied decoration 4
visual pleasure 21
Bristol, Michael D. 177
Brk 148, 171
Brown, Donald 27
Brown, Denise Scott 3, 31
Buck-Morss, Susan 4, 28, 240
asensual anaesthetics 240
orderliness 4
Buenos Aires (Argentina) xviiiixxii
buffing 29, 38
Buni 33
Burke, Donald 70
Buse 11718
Byzantine 2367, 241
Caillois, Roger 208, 210
alea 208
ilinx 208
ludic typology 208
mimicry 208
Cairo (Egypt) 10
California (USA) 239
calligraphy 212, 256
Cambridge Ritualists 235
Camille, Michael 189, 217, 219
architectural order 219
conscious usurpations 219
ludic ritual 219
self inscription 219
Canales, Jimena 36
Cap 22
carnival 143, 16064, 16983, 1867, 206,
208, 219, 2212
anti-structure 16970, 172, 180
criminal behaviour 163, 180
index
269
union 7
civility 7, 41, 234
Clifford, James 25, 200
clowning 160, 190
co-option 124, 128
Cohen, Stanley 193
Cole, Herbert M. 241
Collins, Peter 33
colonization 61
commitment xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, 55, 60,
75, 103, 117, 138, 160, 162, 180, 199,
208, 21516, 2234, 2289
common concern 649, 77, 86, 116
communication xxviii, 4, 19, 48, 559,
61, 656, 69, 73, 80, 82, 867, 956,
11617, 1245, 140, 147, 174, 2036,
240
authentic 61, 95
discursive 124
mass 57
perlocutionary 59
open 205
rational 55, 87
ritual 2056
symbolic 140
verbal 147
visual 65
Communicative Action 55, 5861, 77, 80,
90
competitive 51, 92, 95, 208
confundere 35
Connelly, Joan B. 8
Connolly, William E. 101, 104
consensual xvi, xvii, xxii, xxvii, 4751,
53, 55, 619, 723, 759, 823,
858, 9092, 956, 99102, 104, 106,
11213, 120, 1246, 1289, 134,
146, 1524,156, 163, 1734, 17980,
1823, 190, 215, 219, 221, 2234, 234
conservative 1, 126, 154, 178
constructive 26, 29
containment 67, 177
contestation 87, 95, 1012, 104, 109, 164,
208, 216
Cooke, Maeve 59, 63, 73, 767
communicative action 77
conversation 73
subjective truthfulness 76
validity claim 63, 73, 767
Coomaraswamy, Ananda 3, 47
Cooper, Martha 150
Corijn, Eric 11
Cornford, Francis Macdonald 156
dirt xxv, 16, 20, 31, 49, 111, 119, 159, 163,
169, 190, 210, 214
displacement 96, 111, 163, 186
Dissanayake, Ellen 240
dissensus 88, 96, 100, 102, 106, 112, 126,
234
ferments 100, 112
Doma 22
domestication 122, 128
Douglas, Mary 31, 34, 141, 15960
primordial 141
rituals of purity and impurity 159
traditional ritual 141
Downs, Anthony 101
Drexler, Jane M. 59
Droogers, Andre 190, 209
duality 118, 172, 193
Duchamp, Marcel 32
Duncan, Carol 159
Durkheimian 170, 231
E.B.Itso 12
egality 64, 181, 183
Ehrman, Jacques 208
Eindhoven (Netherlands) 89
Ekta 168, 247
El Mac 68, 247
Elche (Spain) xxii
Elkins, James 50
Elsner, Jas 28, 2368, 241
damnatio memoriae 2367
Second Sophistic 236
truism 236
visual representation 236
Eltono ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xxii, 6, 16, 20, 21, 55,
646, 73, 77, 836, 106, 120, 1225,
1523, 160, 164, 166, 1689, 210,
216, 225
embellishing x, 5, 78, 2526, 28, 3841,
79, 163, 221
enlightenment xvii, 95, 258
Ephratt, Michal 85, 254
epigraph xxi, 11, 106, 183, 208, 219, 223,
228, 231, 247
ergon 3, 356, 389, 42, 44, 46, 115, 158,
160, 181, 184, 208, 222, 231, 234, 241
Erosie xi, 89
Escif x, 72, 73
Escobar, Jesus 5, 7, 254
ESPO 50
etching ix, 21, 22, 48, 216
Evens, Terry M.S. 134, 255
index
271
Hapsburg 7
Harrison, Jane Ellen 235, 236, 241
Harvey, David 12, 31
Havana (Cuba) 68
Heilman, Robert Bechtold 214
Hellenic 4, 30
Hermer, Joe 112
Hermogenes 30
Herscher, Andrew 36
Hersey, George 8, 10, 30, 47
quattrocento 30
sylography 10
Herzog, Jacques 28, 40, 41
heteroglossia 175, 183
Hill, Jonathan xxvii, 11, 26, 28
Hillier, Jean 102
Hirschhorn, Thomas 126
Hobsbawm, E.J. 141, 150, 193
Holquist, Michael 184, 250
Holston, James 51, 231
Homer (Sasha Kurmaz) 38, 44, 88
Homeric 92
Howard, Ebenezer 10
Howe, Leo 75, 143, 153, 198200, 202,
21516
Hughes-Freeland, Elizabeth 142, 202
Huizinga, Johan 208, 210
homo ludens 208
Humphrey, Caroline 2234
Hunt, Alan 112
hybridity 182183
Hyde, Lewis 215
iconoclash 3, 29, 32, 3840, 47, 243
illocutionary 5960, 63, 72, 77, 79, 812,
84, 87, 146, 2034, 234
imaged text 107, 116
Ingold, Tim 217
Ingram, David 61, 70,
Innis, Robert 2445
innovative 49, 97, 206, 217
inscription 27, 39, 88, 108, 11517, 122,
153, 183, 198, 200202, 207, 21617,
219, 226, 228, 231, 237
insurgent xxvi, 3, 12, 29, 46, 51, 90, 119,
1246, 128, 134, 150, 15960, 180,
182, 207, 209, 217, 219, 224, 226,
228, 231, 234, 241
intermuros 184
interruptive 126
intramuros 184
invariance xii, 13842, 1513, 159, 243
index
273
index
275
index
277
track-sides 136
tradition xix, xxii, xxvii, 3, 16, 21, 267, 30,
4041, 4950, 69, 72, 76, 78, 8081,
83, 85, 87, 99, 103, 112, 119, 124,
1334, 137, 13942, 146, 14950,
152, 154, 159, 162, 169, 1745, 184,
186, 204, 2067, 215, 217, 221, 226,
231, 243
transformation 48, 557, 61, 645, 69,
967, 106, 109, 164, 170, 1834, 187,
202, 226, 239
transformative 10, 92, 16970, 178
transgression 100, 112, 134, 147, 1623,
169, 174, 178, 1834, 224
transgressive 11, 141, 164, 180, 184
Tremblin, Mathieu 110
trickster 160, 187, 18990, 1923, 210,
21415, 219, 222
Trilling, James 4, 31, 154
trompe loeil 3, 232
Tunis (Tunisia) 10
Turbo 107
Turnbull, Colin 141
Turner, Victor Witter 161, 1634, 16970,
1725, 177, 18081, 1834, 189, 190
communitas 16970, 1723, 181
duality 172
structure and antistructure 172
Union Square 232
unity xviixviii, xxv, 212, 31, 36, 42, 50,
634, 667, 77, 79, 86, 88, 108, 113,
128, 142, 159, 162, 16970, 177,
1867, 207, 224, 2289, 231
urban xv, xvii, xix, xxi, xxv, 5, 7, 1011, 27,
36, 39, 41, 47, 67, 113, 11516, 122,
1334, 169, 180, 193, 210, 222, 226
utterances 63, 87, 96, 99, 104, 1078, 138,
140, 142
validity 5960, 634, 6970, 723, 757,
80, 82, 95
vandalism xxii, xxvii, 21, 50, 67, 69, 78,
111, 120, 126, 159, 169, 180, 214
Venturi, Robert 3, 26, 312
Vigo (Spain) xxiixxiii, 93, 11415, 148,
225, 2278, 230, 244
Villa, Dana R. 956, 102
Vinograd, Richard 241
violence 41, 69, 85, 92, 96, 102, 104, 143,
156, 186, 205,
Vitruvius 3, 30
Vorotniov, Vova 37
white-out 34
Wilson, James 40
Wilson, Woodrow 26
Wittgenstein, Ludwig 236
Wochenklausur Collective 126
Wright, Frank Lloyd 27
Wynne, Derek 147
Zaidman, Louise Bruit 2312
Zedz 41
Zoan 11718
Zosen 98
Zukin, Sharon xxvi
Zurich (Switzerland) 164