Tattoos and the public

Tattoos as a public form of expression is very intriguing to me. Like graffiti, tattoos are an art form that once was (and still is, but to a lesser extent) viewed as delinquent and a debasement to a clean space. In many cases, tattoos are used to mark gang affiliation or worn as badges of delinquent behavior. However, stereotypes surrounding tattoos have shifted a lot in the passed few decades. The majority of people that I know my age have tattoos – even just in our class I have noticed several of my peers who have visible tattoos. They can also be thought of as expressions of personality, identity, and even have cultural or political connotations.

I have spoken with another professor of mine about the rising popularity of tattoos and she has an interesting theory – I’m not sure if I agree with it entirely but it is definitely something I’d like to explore more. She told me that as the decades have gone by, she has noticed the commercialization of many different kinds of trends that were once unique and used as a way for people who wanted to stand out or deviate from the norm. For example, in the 70’s she used to embroider jean jackets, and in the 80’s she studded them. This was a long process that she put a lot of thought and effort into and would give allow her to wear her own unique identity for others to see. She explained to me that different patterns in embroidery signaled different things to her peers. Now, though, generic stores like Target and Forever 21 manufacture embroidered and studded jackets and anyone can wear them without thinking twice about their meaning, or what they are signaling to other people. Actually, their meaning has effectively been lost. Now, in order to make a genuine and unique statement about who you are, you have to show it with a tattoo.

I think in some ways, tattoos have become a way for people to amass a certain type of cultural capital. They are definitely public, and are a way for people to portray to anyone they come across what their political or ideological views are, or just to show off their love of art. Tattoos are also, in some ways, a labor of love. People want to wear them and be proud -- not only to express themselves, but also to show off a great piece of art that someone else made. I think they're like graffiti in that way as well because it's sending a message through art. And by very nature of it being on someone's body, it's mobile, which makes it easier for a wide audience to see it. 

Just from thinking this through further I think something I’d like to study more is simply the way we communicate through our outer appearance. That is a public statement that you literally cannot avoid making every day. People consciously make decisions about the clothes they wear and whether or not they get tattoos in order to engage strangers and their peers in a conversation about themselves. 

Public Street Art

     By my apartment on Mission Hill there is a an auto repair shop next to a large parking lot that has been covered in graffiti since i moved here two years ago.When i first moved in I would not pay any attention to the sides of the building, partly because i never walked that way and partly because i never really bothered to pay attention to what actually went on the side of the building. Even when i did notice graffiti there for the first time i did not think much about it because it's a city and there is graffiti everywhere, so what would make this spot so special? One day after living in the area for almost a year, i happened to be walking past the garage and saw that there was a group of around five people with ladders and spray paint painting the side of the building. I again, did not think much of it and kept walking past it. The next day i walked past it again, except this time the entire side of the building had been repainted with an awesome design that made it look like like you were looking up from the bottom of the ocean, complete with sharks and everything. This made me stop and actually look at the graffiti for the first time, and realize that it was not just random vandalism but an actual work of art, free for the public to see.

     The location of the street art is one of the most interesting aspects to me. It is painted on the side of the building that is privately owned, so the owner must give his permission to the artists to tag the side of his business, but it is clearly visible to everyone walking or driving past it on the street, making it a public work of art. Where before there had been a drab, ugly side of a building, there was now a pretty impressive mural that brought color and character to the neighborhood. Where before i had not had a ridiculous amount in common with the other non-student residents of my neighborhood, i noticed that just about everyone walking past the mural at least turned their head and looked at for a few moments, giving us all that one mere connection and solidifying our position as a public audience. The mural is public because it is available for anybody and everybody to see and discuss if we felt so inclined, and can help give the community a sense of pride. Ever since that one day i noticed the artists painting, I always observe and appreciate the work and time they put in to make my corner of the world a little more beautiful. The artwork has changed several times, and while i may not always understand the significance and exact of the tagging, it always gives me a sense of pride that i can call this hood home.

Private or Public?

Our class discussion today brought up some was very interesting thoughts about public writing. From NEU bathroom stalls to Trimbur’s reading, public writing is everywhere. I got to hear different opinions as to whom in the class thought that Kluwe’s main purpose was to either sham Emmett Burns or raise the awareness of a same-sex marriage. I think that by writing about such a topic to a public figure shows that he wants to spread the awareness of same-sex marriages and believes that it is something that needs to be brought to the general public. I personally think that Kluwe wrote this letter to sham Emmett Burns as his main purpose, however his argument is solely the trying to change the people’s opinion in legislation that vote on these kinds of matters. One must also realize that this letter has been taken out of context, as there are letters prior to this letter.

The argument between private vs. public is very interesting in its own ways. Nowadays, almost everything is public from newspapers to the Internet. Coming back to the letter, the title is “An Open Letter to Emmett Burns,” this already states that its not going to be a private letter between two people. It is an “open letter,” indicating that it appeals to different audiences of different backgrounds. The audiences that Kluwe was trying to achieve were Emmett Burns himself, sport fans, politicians and more. This relates to public writing and its seven steps. The one that I found most interesting for this instance is a relationship among strangers and either it being personal/impersonal. The use of Huffington Post makes it even more accessible for the general public to look for it, which then again appeals to the public as a whole and not just solely to Emmett Burns himself.

Graffiti, a way to express oneself through art even though it is illegal. In class the writing of “Fuck NEU” in the Holmes Hall men’s bathroom is very intriguing to me that it has different audiences. Initially it is restricted to be to people that attend that specific bathroom, men, making it slightly semi-private. However, I personally think that it is public cause everyone will hear about it either through a conversation, a text, or photo and each individual will have their own view on it and what it means to them. Public writing has an initial audience, however tends to grabs other audiences as well either through the shared level of interest or a photo. For example, when I post on Facebook, I post with the intention that it is going to be read by my closest friends. However, I need to be careful as to what I say as it can be shown to my friends of friends and their friends of friends and so on. Facebook may say it is private, but in reality it is all out there for people to see.

I personally think that almost nothing is private except specific occasions where technology is not involved. There is no balance between privacy and publicity. Overall, the purpose is that almost everything is publicized and we must always consider the context that it is written in otherwise it can create havoc. 

Mayor Menino's open letter to the Rolling Stone

After analyzing “An open letter to Emmet Burns” by Chris Kluwe in class and discussing what an open letter is, I found a separate example of an open letter, which I found intriguing for several reasons. The example I found and chose to analyze was a letter from the Mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, to the publisher of the Rolling Stone magazine, Jann Wenner on July 17, 2013. The letter was written in regard to the magazine’s choice of cover art for that issue, which presented the face of the Boston bomber in a highly glamorous and positively connoted light. Initially, I was stunned and appalled. This letter is something I find very personal to my life; not only am I an avid reader of the Rolling Stone but I also live and study in Boston and the bombings took place very close to where I live.

Mayor Menino, who shared the same opinion of the magazine cover as many other ‘Bostonians’ wrote a short, yet powerful open letter to the magazine’s publisher noting his calm and concise view on the countless negatives of the cover. He went on to focus on more of the positive efforts surrounding the bombings and the magazine’s lack of interest in those efforts.

There is a very large and active audience to this open letter. Firstly, it almost automatically serves the opinion of every Boston resident or visitor affected by the bombings. I believe that these people don’t serve as an audience as much as they serve as the indirect writers of the open letter. They may not have physically written the letter, however, their views coincide perfectly with those of the mayor and therefore, I feel that they can be considered a moving force behind the letter that is as significant as the mayor himself. This letter beautifully upholds the idea of ‘One Boston’ and ‘Boston Strong’. Other groups of people that can be considered audiences of this open letter are: politically active readers, readers of the Rolling Stone and most importantly, the publisher and the team behind the magazine cover.

The mayor uses simple but bold sentences to empower accusations made towards the publisher, such as “Your August 3 cover rewards a terrorist with celebrity treatment”. I love how he also maintains his cool by directing his anger away from the cover (as he openly states in the first sentence of the second paragraph) and focuses on how the magazine could have presented the survivors, volunteers and first responders, etc. in a positive light. He does a wonderful job of closing the short letter by blatantly ‘sticking’ it to the magazine and telling them they no longer “deserve” to talk about the survivors of the bombings. Not only does he perfectly embody the rowdy and aggressive stereotype of the people of Boston, but he also creates a brand new topic of discussion into the power of overcoming traumatic events graciously and formidably like the city of Boston has done so over the last few months.

Graffiti: Public vs. Private

            Our class discussion today brought up some interesting points regarding the formation of a public, the fact that it is self-contained. We did not get a chance, because of the fervency of our discussion regarding Kluwe’s letter, to fully discuss the Trimbur reading. One of the questions he poses, along with giving us examples of images that appear in the public sphere, is regarding the ethical implications of graffiti. I missed the opportunity to hear to your opinions in class, so I thought I’d reintroduce the topic here.

            Graffiti is inherently illegal. The legal ramifications are set in stone, as the defacement of public property is fairly easy to define. That being said, there is a distinction to be made between the lawful parameters and the ethical parameters, I believe. The purpose behind each piece of graffiti art is unique. So, too, are the ethical ramifications. While I cannot reasonably deduce what makes one instance of graffiti ethical versus another, considering the circumstantial nature of ethics, I wanted to introduce the correlation between the canvas chosen to present said art and its situational ethics.

            The presence of graffiti is ubiquitous in most urban landscapes, such as the city we live in. Some folks mentioned the cultural significance of the images outside South Station, noting that they are a part of a global movement. Though in that particular case, the artistic qualities of the images are undeniable, what if the setting were different? What if someone went so far as to deface your home?

            In HBO’s documentary “Miss You Can Do It”, cameras follow the families of young girls with various cognitive and physical disabilities taking part in a beauty pageant. One such family, the Millers, who have two daughters with Down syndrome, recounted the discrimination they faced from their community. They woke one morning to find, spray-painted all around the exterior of their home, phrases like “Retards go away” and “We’re gonna kill you”, among other obscenities. This was an obvious display of contempt, as the language used was aggressive and offensive. The unethical nature of this instance is not really blurry, but it brings up the significance of where the graffiti appears. In this case, a family’s home was vandalized. Regardless of the hateful message, a form of public art was displayed on a private canvas.

            As stated, graffiti will always be unlawful, and the ethics behind this particular manifestation of resistance will always be murky. Perspective plays a key role in determining whether a situation is ethical. In the example above, graffiti was used to illustrate the disdain of the community for the Miller family, an expression of things they could not and did not want understand. I found it important to note that though graffiti may be used as form of public sphere writing, there is a stark line between exercising one’s First Amendment rights to free speech and infringing on another’s right to safety and privacy. When the purpose behind the public message is to harass, and if the public message appears in a private place, the ethical implications are as obvious as the image itself.

Public, Private and Anonymous

The idea of a public has changed drastically over the years as technological advances have increased our ability to communicate to a vast audience without being physically present. While telephones and mail have long removed the need for face to face communication, the invention and proliferation of the Internet has brought anonymous discourse to a new level. This has led to the advent of large anonymous message boards and content browsing sites such as reddit and 4chan which, despite having few to no members of known identity, have grown huge public audiences with their own popular opinions and perspectives.

            This anonymity allows the members to produce content without serious concern for how they will be perceived by the public towards which their discourse is directed. While certainly their purpose in posting communications is to insight a certain set of reactions depending on the topic, they are able to take more risks, as they need not fear criticism or unwanted reactions on their actual identity. This in a way creates a different kind of privacy that allows for interaction with many different people that does not include many of the drawbacks of producing a work for a public setting.

 While anonymous discourse communities do protect the users from attack on their personal reputation, it also prevents one from getting credit for inspiring and useful contributions and takes away from the ethos and tone of the piece.  For example, had Chris Kluwe’s letter been submitted anonymously it would likely have been largely ignored or assumed to be written by just another gay marriage activist. By overtly communicating that he is the author of this piece, Kluwe’s letter is not only given more attention, but it also affects Kluwe’s reputation and persona while giving him credit for a well written response.

            The additional freedom of communicating anonymously through public Internet forums creates opportunities for people to take on different personas and say things, which they would normally not want to say to people in real life. While this can be as minor as expressing an unpopular opinion, it has also created Internet trolling and bullying because the anonymity prevents bad consequences for the user. While there are dangerous side effects of anonymity, proper education about Internet use and online security can mitigate the risks.

This freedom is not all bad though because the diversity of viewpoints this propagates in Internet communities creates increasingly intricate and insightful content and discussion. Experts, celebrities, and regular members can come together to create some very informative posts which vividly explain complicated and nebulous topics in ways that anyone can understand.

Overall, I think the increase in anonymous communication and the creation of wholly anonymous communities adds a third element to this dichotomy of public vs. private spheres. It draws the line in the middle between these two and takes some positive and negative aspects from both, creating a unique space. This space has led to innovative discourse communities and loads of unique content that may not have been realized without the rise of the Internet. In this way anonymous communication will continue to shape our society and pop culture in

Looking Beyond Words

I think today's class brought up some very interesting thoughts on writing in the public sphere. I am not a particularly avid sports fan, never mind a football follower (I do not think I have ever even held a football). Even with that in mind, I was not exposed to the open letter by football player Chris Klowe by any social media outlet such as Facebook or the newspaper. I came into this letter and finished reading the whole thing without knowing the author or the background story that triggered the response. My first thoughts expressed my distaste for his use of profanity. I admittedly use profanity in my everyday discourse amongst my friends, but I felt as though a public piece of writing, especially one on such an established website such as the Huffington Post, should have veered away from such diction. Although I found the word-choice entertaining, I personally think that whatever points that need to be addressed must be done so with restraint and class. I then remembered that we were supposed to focus on writing in the public sphere. I then erased all of my judgements and reread the letter and focused on how he appealed to a public audience. I realized that the very colorful and descriptive name-calling was actually what brought people to support Klowe's claims and arguments. I started thinking about everyday life and how complete strangers would start interacting out of the blue. I am often exposed to this type of situation on public transportation because there are always people complaining about our lovely MBTA system. The fact that the train or bus has frequent delays is already bad enough, but the aggravated T-passengers just top the cake. I observe quiet people join in on random conversations complaining about the service and they converse with profanity very comfortably. I always that swearing was just something that has become engrained within our society that it has become “not a big deal”. After thinking about the public sphere, I actually think that incorporating swears into conversations brings strangers' opinions onto the same plane as your own (assuming you agree with them). You still remain strangers and you do not know anything about the other person but their opinion; however, just from the shared opinion, you start feeling accepted. I think the same thing happened with Klowe's letter in which, like we mentioned in class, he represented a specific group, which also included the audience. I suppose it is a societal metamorphosis that has us accepting profanity in public places. The appeal of his letter was the topic of the legalities of gay marriage, but it was the familiarity or “homeliness” of his diction that convinced people to stay and give it attention. A classmate mentioned that this letter wasn't meant to be public, but the reality of it is that it now is. I find it interesting how once it became public, he became a representative figure of his now public audience. His name-calling was not longer simply geared to put someone down, but it became a decision that added to his rhetorical appeal. I feel like the letter was written with at least a feeling that it would eventually become public.