Wes Akers

I found the article, “Graffiti and Art Education: They Don’t Understand How I Feel About the FUNK” by Rosalind Hampton using the Auraria Library databases.  After reading the abstract and skimming the article, I was drawn to it because it was different from others I have read.  Rosalind Hampton wrote the article with help from three members of the FUNK graffiti crew, DARE, HYKE, and JUICE.  The authors note they did not come together to conduct a formal research study, but rather created a “community of inquiry” (Hampton, 2013) to better understand graffiti and how it impacts writers.  They wrote the article in response to the deaths of three teenage graffiti writers who lost their lives while creating graffiti.  The article explores three questions.

1. Are graffiti writers artists?
2. What should art educators know about graffiti culture?
3. Should art educators teach students about graffiti?

I was drawn to these questions because they relate to my action research for a few reasons.  The first question is a major focus of my graffiti instructional unit.  My students explore this question by reading different texts and viewing different types of media.  I feel like I found a new resource to include in the unit. 

Additionally, the second question yielded responses from participants about positive and negative aspects of graffiti culture.  With this question, Hampton (2013) dives deeper into the risks of being a graffiti writer.

When I read this section, I reflected our questions about the affordances and limitations of engaging with public art and my prior research.  A few things stood out to me.  

1. Most of the positive outcomes are related to intrinsic rewards and identity.

Although our questions are no longer based on identity development, I’m still noticing this trend in my research.  Although Hampton’s (2013) questions did not include the word “identity,” she finds graffiti culture can influence adolescents’ identity development.

2. Most of the negative outcomes are more extrinsic and tangible.  

Hampton’s (2013) findings here are helpful to me when I consider the limitations of engaging with graffiti.  Hampton’s (2013) writing about risk-taking behavior and adrenaline addiction were ideas I had not previously considered.  In my group’s proposal, Remi left a note about going beyond superficial negative impacts like delinquency and diving deeper.  I think risk-taking behavior and adrenaline addiction will be possible avenues for going deeper.  

3. Personally, I feel like the negative outcomes could be diverted if graffiti laws were different.

The third question struck me because it is not one I have previously considered.  Although I’m not an art teacher, I am a teacher promoting graffiti education.  After interviewing graffiti writers and reading prior research, Hampton (2013) recommends that teachers not educate students about graffiti.  She justifies her recommendation with these reasons.

1. Most young adolescents cannot differentiate between graffiti as vandalism and as art (Kan, 2001).
2. Most teachers create “one-shot-deal graffiti lessons and mural projects” (Hampton, 2013).  It is more beneficial to create “long-term community mural programs and legal walls for graffiti” (Bowen, 1999).
3. “Only graffiti artists themselves are qualified, by virtue of their lived experiences, to teach about graffiti skills and culture” (Hampton, 2013).

I thought #3 was interesting because it gave me some insight into Hampton’s thinking behind her qualitative data analysis.  I specifically honed in on the word “qualified” and how she defined a qualified graffiti educator as one with graffiti life experiences.  Although she does not explicitly say it, I’m inferring she connects qualified to having graffiti life experiences based on the interviews she has conducted with the FUNK graffiti crew.  I imagine she noticed this similarity among participant responses and drew this conclusion.

Although this article was not incredibly detailed, I’m glad I reviewed it because it helped me adjust my thinking since revising our questions.  It also helped me reaffirm the notion that art education in general impacts adolescent identity.