xavier jefferson

Taking the train by Joe Austin initially addresses the concept of framing stories constructed by the mass media which ultimately build for different groups and individuals their perceptions of the present and future of New York City. From this, at its pinnacle New York could be seen as the New Rome but just as there are two sides to every story there are framing stories which focus on the negative aspects of the city and bring about the perception of the Naked City. The question becomes, that during that period in the postindustrial era of the 1950s and 60s when major transformation was occurring physically, economically, and socially, were the driving forces behind their efforts to restructure the city a part of rebuilding the perception of the New Rome, or was this merely a disguise used by private sectors to weed out undesirables and bolster the private interest?

In the reading there is also a discussion of fame and the economy of prestige associated with writing on the personal, local, and regional levels. It’s noted that while the early writers may have initially been focused on the aesthetic appeal, the notoriety evolved and urban youth subculture began to place value in the concept of spreading a name. What was the ultimate accomplishment for these writers in seeing their names in the mass media whether placed there intentionally or not, and did there writing really have an impact on individuals outside of the urban youth subculture?

In the reading there is also a discussion of fame and the economy of prestige associated with writing on the personal, local, and regional levels. It’s noted that while the early writers may have initially been focused on the aesthetic appeal, the notoriety evolved and urban youth subculture began to place value in the concept of spreading a name. What was the ultimate accomplishment for these writers in seeing their names in the mass media whether placed there intentionally or not, and did there writing really have an impact on individuals outside of the urban youth subculture?

In Chapter two there is a discussion of the influences on writing within the history of writing itself, writing being a formal title for tagging. As discussed in the previous chapter the idea behind framing stories is that ultimately the events which occur within the public and social spheres are filtered into a single idea which constructs perceptions of the city. Could the way in which events in the public sphere effected how writers perceive their writing and the way in which they presented it, be compared to how framing stories are constructed and if so was this channeled through the writing to those who viewed it?

Niccole Zurek

1.) In the Prologue, Austin says that there was a misrepresentation of writing as vandalism in the media, but isn't graffiti technically vandalism? Or are have we been brought up to believe that it is? I believe that if I had no knowledge that graffiti was a form of vandalism and was exposed to it later in life I would not think anything of it, except maybe to appreciate it. When issues or concepts are framed either in a negative or positive light in the media it has the power to alter the public's perception.

2.) The big argument is whether or not writing, or graffiti, should be seen as an art form. However, who determines what is art and what isn't? A government official and an art critic or gallery owner are going to have very different opinions and interpretations of art and aesthetic. Art is completely subjective and as long as someone credits the work as "art", people will believe it. If Duchamp can put a urinal in museum and have it called a major landmark in art, why can't graffiti be considered an art form? Isn't it more aesthetically pleasing than a urinal?


3.) Did people like John Lindsay and other government officials and organizations take the "war on graffiti" too far? Organizations against writers and writing were formed that used near military tactics to try to put an end to this "unauthorized" writing. They even believed some of the early writings to be "coded references to upcoming terrorist attacks". Really? Is it necessary to spend tens of millions of dollars on this "epidemic" when they had far more severe things to worry about?

Mike Hartman

We have talked about how art can beautify the underground, making it more appealing. Does writing, or “tagging”, not add flare to the city? Murals are encouraged in some places. There are a few famous ones in Austin, yet making an identical mural in New York, for example, could put you in jail or give you a fine. What constitutes art to be acceptable in public?

Hip hop and “graffiti” are directly related to poorer classes (primarily minorities) in New York. Does the fact that it is primarily minorities who “tag” play a part in the escalation of the war on “graffiti”? Is part of the problem that tagging is being done on subway cars that white, wealthier people have to see and use?

It is evident that writing is related to gang wars, quite possibly enhancing violence. How might the mass media have played an effect on people’s opinions relating violence to tagging?

How would tagging change if it were to become legal? Might the demographics doing the tagging change? Does the fact that tagging is against the law make current taggers want to do it more?

Finally, what would be the best approach to ending graffiti all together?

Victoria Hurley

1. In the prologue to Taking the Train, Joe Austin introduces two stories that promote hiding graffiti, known to be part of New York’s culture. These stories introduce major themes including hiding the painted trains form the public eye. A quote from Jaime Bryan is included, “what kind of city do the people want to live in?” If they are always changing the subway or art in order to impress a group of people, how will the city find a stable identity? Who do the people of New York City want to be or accomplish? Many tourists first see New York city when coming to America, how does that effect the way New York wants to symbolize America?

2. Why were the “mass mediated public stories” so important in bringing out the esoteric culture of New York City? Why was New York the “iconic” urbanized city culture that these framing stories attempted to decode?

3. When Sanford D. Garelik, president of City Council, proposed a “War on Graffiti,” he decided to include a monthly “Anti-Graffiti” day. The day was modeled on Earth Day, designed to inspire awareness to the environment, including the prevention of pollution. On what scale was this model appropriate for New York City? The council president mentioned that the graffiti was “polluting the eye and mind” and ultimately violating purity within the citizen’s mind. How rational was this? Was the context of the word “war” suitable for the situation and circumstances? Is polluting the mind with pictures as serious as polluting our planet as the model of the celebration of Earth Day.?

Hannah Black

1) Within the piece, it notes that graffiti was the artists' very public way of expressing their ritualized rebellion. This cohesive force was very powerful and still continues to this day for many graffiti artists in New York City, but it also seems that other avenues are presently being explored for many of today's youth to express themselves. What are some ways that the youth of today often express themselves, and using what forms of technology? Has the paint can turned into the computer?

2) On page 6 of the article, the writer speaks of the irony regarding past plans by government officials to "legitimize" graffiti artistry by installing initiatives through the National Endowment for the Humanities. From the outside looking in, was government leadership finally validating graffiti art only after fitting it within their own accepted hierarchical and race structures? Do other hegemonic structures rework present-day cultural expressions in similar ways?

3) Chapter 3 discusses the role the media played in painting graffiti and its subculture as "dangerous" and "adverse" to the society-at-large. Who do you think was in charge of this (probably) intentional demagoguery, and what do you propose was their end goal, if there was one? What present-day issues are hot button matters because of various leaders' attempts to dramatize said issues?

Victoria Atkinson

1. On July 3, 1976, a patriotic mural was meticulously applied to train cars in hopes of the art pieces being seen during fourth of July celebrations the next day. However, the writers' plan ended in failure when the train car did not run through the subway. The city was encouraged to use the public transportation system that day, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority refused to allow passengers to board a train they considered to have been vandalized. Do you think this act of covering up the flaws of the city is justifiable, or can it be seen unpatriotic? What would you do if placed in the circumstance

2. Since the idea of graffiti emerged in American culture, it has been a topic of high debate. "Writing" as the artists themselves like to call it is a way of expressing themselves and letting the public know who they are, even if it is just a simple name followed by a series of numbers. However, "bombing" the walls of public spaces with more elaborate masterpieces takes graffiti to another level. SUPER KOOL 223 stated, "We've made the biggest art movement ever to hit New York City." Is this writer correct in their assumption? The biggest question is if graffiti should be considered art. There are so many realms in the world of art that it seems close-minded to, without thought, write it off as destructive. Is it fair to deny these children and teens the right to an expression of their own creative abilities? What do you think constitutes something as art?

3. Rather than attempting to understand the reason behind the compulsion to write on subway car walls, the government found it more necessary to wage in "war" against the issue at hand. Because the art of graffiti was seen as an illegal new movement, the public sphere focused on the punishment of the perpetrators as well as undoing the pieces that had already been done. Is it economically efficient to pour millions of dollars into an idea that erases a young person's work that has time and emotions invested in it, or could the money be invested in a more important cause? If you were head of the city's government, in what ways would you attempt to end this outbreak of geometric lettering filled with vibrant colors? Do you think "writing" should be illegal or does it give a city character?

Fiona Moran

Fiona Moran

The American Underground

Discussion Questions for the reading: Taking The Train, by Joe Austin

1. In his prologue Austin adopts the term ‘writer’ for the individuals that participated in the cultural phenomenon of graffiti work, which found its beginnings in the late 1950’s. These urban ‘writers’ chronicled and documented the adolescent sentiments of the period, the political climate and subjected the public to a subculture that ultimately opposed authoritative restraints, however we can see that the concept of identity was also of significance. This young generation from usually disenfranchised sectors of society had found a method to regain a voice and could construct an individual identity that was projected upon the public arena. Consider the relationship between deindustrialization and the urban renewal programs of the 1950’s and 60’s upon the poorer sectors of NYC and the emergence of graffiti.

2. The subway system of NYC had long been a symbol of the city’s New Rome status and a testament to early technological prowess. When commenting upon Mayor John Lindsay’s opinions on the urban crisis of the early 1960’s Austin writes: ‘Lindsay understood public transport to be a key infrastructural resource that must be preserved and expanded if U.S central cities were to maintain their place as centers of national life.’ Graffiti tags and names began to envelop every available surface of the subway train, signaling a lack of authoritative control over a once revered NYC landmark. Discuss how the anxiety surrounding urban decline and a ‘city in crisis’ resulted in a ‘war on graffiti’ and the framing of ‘writers’ as the sources of such evils.

3. ‘Lindsay’s task force, claimed to have taken an informal polling of subway riders and found that the overwhelming majority did not feel it was art’ writes Austin in his chapter entitled ‘Writing “Graffiti”’. Many artists, art critics and art historians had compelling arguments about graffiti being a form of cultural expression and not a crime, yet who has the authority to decide what can be considered a work of art? Does having the language and education to describe and understand art give you this authority? When the graffiti was ‘framed’ within an art gallery setting did it then become art? Can art only be art in a gallery and not in the streets?

Emily Hunter

Taking the Train Discussion Questions

1. In Taking the Train, author Joe Austin asserts that framing stories simplify and guide the way people view public and political issues. The New Rome and Naked City were two contradicting ideas meant to frame the way New York City was viewed. What role do these ideas play in the graffiti controversy in New York during the 1970s and 1980s? What effect do the New Rome and Naked City ideas have on the way the general public thought about the graffiti on the subways?
2. Although the graffiti in New York was seen as a nuisance and a major problem, public funds were going to the construction of murals in public places. What is it that makes the murals socially acceptable while the graffiti is not? Many art critics called the graffiti on the subways art, while politicians and others who opposed graffiti saw it as the degradation of society. Do you think that graffiti could be considered to be art like the murals? Why or why not?
3. When the graffiti in New York City began to be spoken about in the public sphere, those who opposed it or found it objectionable began looking for solutions to the “graffiti problem.” The City Council President even proposed a “War on Graffiti” and describes graffiti as something the city must “combat.” Does the harsh language used by those trying to clean up the subways and public areas effect the way the public sees the graffiti? Why was the view that the graffiti may be culturally significant often derided or ignored? Did the fact that it was a movement by the youth of the city play a role in the way it was viewed?

Chris Harkins

In Survival City: Adventures among the Ruins of Atomic America Author Tom Vanderbilt talks about the desert becoming “modern functional” on page 24 paragraph 2. How has the desert become “modern functional” in the context of this article? What are some other examples of areas being developed in unfamiliar ways due to the Cold War?

The Cold War revolutionized the purpose and tactics of war. With nuclear weapons in play nations had the ability to cripple other nations in a permanent manner. What regions in the United States would be primary targets in the attempt to cripple America permanently? The United States had to prepare for a nuclear attack. What were some plans the U.S. undertook in an attempt to save the western way of life?

The Cold War was the worst war that was never fought. In terms of the development of bomb shelters how does this statement apply to the American people's morals. In terms of war obviously the worst to come out of this was a surplus of nuclear weapons. How could this actually play a role in keeping peace throughout the world in the present day and in the future?

David Hook

1)Was it a smart move for Kennedy to monger fear with his address to the nation in July of 1961?
If he didn't endorse the use of bomb shelters by appointing $207 million to civil defense would the "red scare" have gained as much steam? Was this a wise choice on his part?
Discuss: "better red than dead" "gun thy neighbor"

2)Was the bomb shelter considered a wise choice or was it simply "a hole to crawl into and die"?
Would one rather die quickly rather than live in a post apocalyptic world?

3)It was stated that the government spent $5.5 trillion on Cold War weapons development during the arms race which would ultimately just make damage even throughout the world. Why was ultimate destruction mutually acceptable among world powers as opposed to diplomacy? Why would an "intelligent" government play the most expensive and dangerous game of chicken known to man? If Truman never dropped the bombs on Japan, would this arms race exist knowing that a person is capable of killing so many with the push of a button? If Truman never dropped the bombs would someone else have first?

Questions 1 and 2 are referring to Rose and 3 is referring to Vanderbilt.