Subway Art History by Slavery

Here’s a different take on public art: the graffiti collective Slavery is painting “covers” of historic graffiti, but obtaining permission from property owners to paint the pieces as legal murals. Members of the collective remain anonymous, in a reversal of the usual fame-seeking bravado. The messages, too, have been tweaked — “Joan of Arc” above is an update of Seen’s 1980 “Hand of Doom.”

Slavery sees the murals as starting points for conversation about history — NYC roughly thirty years ago, when these original graffiti pieces were painted, and important historical figures who are honored in these new murals, including Gandhi, Plato, and Spinoza. Their goal is to paint about 50 of these throughout the city.

As always, I have some questions. I came across this project in a NYT article, “Graffiti of New York’s Past, Revived and Remade,” so I know the back story. But, how would someone understand these murals in situ, without that back story? Is the send-up to old graffiti obvious? Could the reference be seen as simply part of the 1980s throwback moment we’re currently having in all aspects of pop culture, as a mere co-optation of an aesthetic?

These murals are legal. They’re based on work that wasn’t and, in fact, the old pieces were the catalyst for then-Mayor Koch’s much publicized war on graffiti. Again, how is that understood, or is it understood, by someone who sees one of these pieces in passing? Does it seem to have the impact of a public art piece, or does it seem illegal? Would someone actually be inclined to think about, or learn about, Gandhi, or would the name be understood as just a tag? Is the cleverness of the work lost on its intended audience, or is the intended audience made up only of people who can recognize all the layers of meaning?

Lastly is the issue of permission. The Slavery artists are working with property owners but not always with the blessing of the original artists or their families. As a member of the collective put it, “I almost felt that I’d be humbling myself too much to go ask them, ‘Um, do you mind?’” Frankly, that seems lazy to me. I can understand the argument that, since the original art was created illegally, conventional standards of obtaining permission don’t apply. Or, I can understand attempting to obtain permission from everyone, but not always being able to secure it. One or the other. But, recreating historical artwork and doing so anonymously both seem like acts of humbling oneself, so I’m not sure what “too much” refers to, aside from too much effort.

What do you think?

Advertisement