New Book Exploits U.F.O. Graffiti Artist
“We thought, ‘What if we treat this as a serious anthropologist would treat cave art?’” That’s the concept behind Combustive Motor Corporation’s new book on New York City graffiti artist, U.F.O. Using photos, illustrations, diagrams and artspeak babble, the book documents CMC’s interpretation of U.F.O.’s graffiti and supposes it’s evolution from ancient cave drawings. The trouble is anthropologists are not supposed to shut out their subjects, and U.F.O. was not only uninvolved with the book but his input was refused.
While the book is clearly about the author’s own understanding of U.F.O.’s work, there’s no reason to ignore the artist completely. When the authors were asking Stephen Hawking, Bill Clinton and Cornbread questions like, “Who do you think the artist might be trying to communicate with?” it would have been a good time to ask U.F.O. himself. Even as a purposefully absurd study of the alien spaceship graffiti around New York City, the absence of U.F.O.’s input undermines the integrity of the book, and appears incomplete.
Last week, U.F.O. showed up in disguise to chat with Combustive Motor Corporation at the release party they held to push their book. Though no minds were changed, the discussion continues on Suckapants. Intentional or not, we agree this book exploits U.F.O. and his work. Conducting an “urban anthropology” on U.F.O. without involving him is unethical and exploitative research by any definition.
Call it exploitation, but interviewing him would have severely biased their work and largely compromised their concept. In the first place, isn’t graffiti always laid down with the knowledge that the artist won’t be present to explain it to admirers? And I have trouble feeling any pity for an artist who’s having a book published about his work. There’s a phrase on suckapants that I like: “art is art because it is open to interpretation”. No one has standing to claim that their shit is being interpreted incorrectly. Isn’t seeing those various interps the primary reason for creating it at all? I buy a lot of books, and from where I sit, this thing will ‘help’ U.F.O. a lot more as is than it would were it littered with his own interpretation. Graf artists, while they may be some of the most thoughtful and clever denizens of New York, can often inherit a bad rap, and while an interview might have been a great chance to dispel such, a lot of folks would have just been turned off and not read the thing at all if they perceived it as a cocky child masturbating on a page. Perhaps this publication is an effort to build bridges between two or more communities, and that’s no easy task - sometimes you need to know when to hold your complaints no matter how easily they bubble up. Plus I would think the element of mystery should be some fun for all. I’m sure U.F.O. has some interesting thoughts about what he was trying to convey - but isn’t he curious about whether they’ll surface without his spoon-feeding?
By Mike on November 13th, 2006 at 3:24 pmCall it exploitation, but interviewing him would have severely biased their work and largely compromised their concept.
Involving the artist among so many other sources would not have compromised the concept, and since CMC claims to be doing anthropological research on UFO, it is their ethical obligation to actively consult him. Anytime researchers involve human subjects, they have a responsibility to not only involve them, but to protect them, even if it limits their own work.
Everything else you said is an irrelevant side argument. I’m not contesting the author’s right to interpret UFO’s work, just to conduct “research” without consulting him. The Institutional Review Board of any research institution would consider this book unethical and exploitative.
By Will on November 13th, 2006 at 8:25 pmWhether you consider graffiti an art form much like others, or one that’s significantly distinct from others, I believe I can see why the authors would treat it as the latter. Since they’re attempting anthropology, they want to see their object in its natural environment, which is anonymity. When I admire a piece, I don’t know who created it; this is nearly the opposite situation from when I admire a painting, because typically the painter’s name and even a small story about her are prominent. Although I can’t be sure, I imagine the authors here are trying to show that this oft-maligned medium can elicit highly positive reactions even without any atypical input from the artist. To show certain politicians that the folk they represent do not actually have negative feelings about the culture. The legal situation gives them cover for their exploitation, yes, but it also gives them an opportunity to make a statement.
By Mike on November 14th, 2006 at 2:10 amI think you’re missing the point. Anthropology, even attempted anthropology, is unethical without the informed consent of the subject. Also, making a statement does not make exploitation any more okay.
By Will on November 14th, 2006 at 1:23 pmFrom one of the authors, and to set part of this record stright, we did attempt to get the approval of the artist UFO, and we were informed that we had received his approval of the project. The first any of us heard from him was the night of the opening, and that was also the first time we were informed that he was unhappy with the project. I don’t feel that it is respectful of anyone’s interests to bring the details of this “he said, she said” misunderstanding into a public forum, but we are making efforts to figure out how we went forward believing we had his approval while he obviously feels that we did not.
There’s nothing I can say about the other aspects of this discussion - everyone has their opinion.
By alex on November 20th, 2006 at 2:34 pmThanks for sharing this, Alex.
By Will on November 20th, 2006 at 3:00 pm