Going into the visual project having chosen a subject that I wasn’t particularly comfortable with initially was intimidating. I had always been very conscious of the importance of space in the construction of an identity. Growing up as a Middle Eastern, it was always hard to not have to pick a side or have some kind of knowledge of the struggle for land between Palestinians and Israelis. I not only learned about it in school but I experienced it firsthand upon traveling to the Gaza strip. Similarly, the more and more I learned about the LGBTQ community, the more I realized that their story functions similarly to the Israeli- Palestinian one that I am all too familiar with. The most interesting part of the project however was when I was researching the notion of inclusion vs. exclusion. When the flag about city hall was removed, there was a lot of backlash from the gay community because they felt like they were being pushed back into the dark again. At first, I sympathized with their pain but soon after I was left wondering who gets to determine whether a location belongs to a group of people or not? Is it in terms of size? In terms of strength and power? Or is it based on the way institutions assign certain groups of people to certain locations? The truth of the matter is, I don’t think West Hollywood belongs to the gay community; yes, they’ve established themselves there and they have made a very profound impact on the area but to say that it belongs to them or that they should have the flag up is a bit ludicrous. Beverly Hills is known for being home to mostly Persians, but there aren’t flags of Iran up all around the city. Similarly, there are areas in Los Angeles that are racially centered and while we feel their presence through the restaurants and shopping areas that are located there, there is never a formal recognition by the city. I think the backlash is ultimately unnecessary
The May 4th incident involving the police harassing minority students after a call was made in regards to a noise complaint hits close to home because it’s my story. I was there that night and I witnessed the devastation on all my peer’s faces as we were victimized for having committed absolutely no crime. Jayson Sneed, a good friend of mine, made very important points the night of the forum. He pointed out that the reason this story was even being heard was because we were USC students and as a private institution, our school functions like a business- meaning headlines like this would be bad for profit. So what if we weren’t USC students. Who would hear us? The answer is no one because even as USC students we are subject to routine discrimination and prejudices without anyone saying about it. When my good friend Rini Sampath and Jordan Farmer decided to run as the next USG president and vice president I was overcome with joy. It would be the first time we had two females, two diverse females I must add, in office. My joy was quickly turned into shock as I watched the racist comments appear on USC’s Yik Yak app. From associating Rini with the Taliban to calling Jordan the n word, the posts were pouring in by USC students. The truth of the matter is, I think USC is an accurate depiction of the real world. Its predominately white, just like the top one percent of this country, and it functions basically on a system where the rich help their “own” get richer and the poor struggle to be heard. In the real world, most cases about discrimination of black men don’t matter because those in power of media outlets don’t care. Why? Because it’s not their story. We need more people in positions of power who are diverse because they will care about these issues. As long as we have police who have no connection to the people they are so called “protecting” or people in positions of power, our reality will be nothing but a broken record.
Today as I was walking home from school I saw a homeless man peeing on this metal box that apparently houses all the wires for the city or something along those lines. I couldn’t quite make out what the box was because it was covered in graffiti. As I tried to turn my head so I wouldn’t have to see the man peeing on the colored metal box I thought to myself about how rude, disgusting, and vulgar his actions were. It’s a public setting for god’s sake, how could anyone be so ignorant as to perform an action like that in public and then right then I thought about the graffiti that covered the box. Why did I think the man peeing on the structure was any more vulgar, rude, or disgusting than the graffiti on the box when they both functioned as forms of disrespect towards public property? Graffiti sought to destroy with paint a structure that represented rules and what the homeless man was doing was honestly no different. Both groups functioned as delinquents in my eyes who had no respect for the system in place and therefore made their own rules. Should methods of rebellion in public spaces function to destroy the space for everyone else? I get it, it’s important to voice your opinions in public settings but why does it have to be at a cost to everyone else? Why do buses and trains in New York have to look raggedy and destroyed for a generation to voice their feelings and opinions… I think there are proper ways to rebel that won’t make it harder on everyone else that has to function in the same public setting and to not operate within that makes you selfish.
I always found graffiti to be quite interesting but it always represented a certain dirtiness to me. I think the reason why this message resonates so many people is because graffiti is rooted in rebellion and that in itself is considered “dirty” in our society. I definitely commend the artists for the beautiful pictures and figures they are able to produce but I would never want to live in a neighborhood where graffiti is rampant. There isn’t much about it that is aesthetically pleasing. When I was younger I had a big interested in getting one of the walls in my room painted by a talented graffiti artist and I can say it really did give my room the edge that I was looking for, but after a while it got really old and I felt like it wasn’t something that I could see every single day. I think there is a strong message that exists within their desire to write their names everywhere and become famous through it. Most graffiti artists emerge out of the lower-economic strata and to society they are completely invisible. By tagging their names on public material they are announcing their existence in a big way, and to me, the act is an attack on the structures in place that have disadvantaged them. As for the few graffiti artists that don’t have such a past, their case is a bit complicated but again, the common theme is that they are not happy with the system in place and by destroying it and writing their names on it, they are in fact claiming material parts of the city. The same way that someone who is affluent buys property with money, members of the graffiti world buy through taking what they think belongs to them.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2015
Categories |