Claiming [Space] for Altruistic Motives

In 2006, while photographing New York City I came across a graffiti script on the walkway of the Williamsburg Bridge. Though I thought it was interesting, I did not capture that image; however, as I continued walking, I saw the identical “i love you” phrase on a beam obviously difficult to reach but much more striking. This was intent…this was claiming space that offered the reader a moment to possibly reflect or at the least question. Often, graffiti was used to claim space for territorial gangs. Other groups would then retaliate and cross out, tag over or otherwise reclaim space for their own. Since the late 80’s, there has been a shift from simply tagging and claiming space for the ‘hood’ to recognizing tags as an early form of street art. It was; however, visibility versus the static graffiti art that became important…city and commercial trains were the media that lent exposure to these unknown artists.

To now consider this somewhat newer (static) graffiti art with a message; “i love you”. Certainly New York City is known as a transient city which would lend to exposure. The artist now becomes the traveler, echoing their known art. In this case…I, as the photographer of this graffiti am perpetuating the exposure and dialogue. The message is simple and is easily applied to anyone’s personality or disposition. When we juxtapose Robert Indiana’s Love sculpture we add another element to question. Commissioned work, though trending a similar message, does not hold the same impact nor impress the same audience. 

So the question is posed look at the script upon the bridge, "I love you", if you were to encounter this in public, what would you think, feel or do? Would you have a response?

Response: I see man's creation, and know instantly that it is man who has tackled the challenges of the world. Coffee House: DreamscapeVisions Photography & Poetry

Is it the ambiguity that transmits the message? Is it the bridge that underlines a message of conquering men or the bridging of humanity? Is this the taming of a wild city or fulfilling moments for individual encounters? Do we need a back story to accept the message or can we claim the space as simply purposeful for our own wants of the moment?

Included below is an excerpt of an interview with a street artist which from the script, would appear to be the same artist, whose work I photographed on the bridge. 

Much of the paint has faded or has been removed, but Nathan Reimer's altruistic message to New Yorkers dissolved some heavy urban cynicism. Photographs carrying the same high energy live on.

Why, "I love you"?

What three words have had a more profound effect on any of us? Nothing makes you feel better than hearing those three words. I really put my heart into writing every single one of those words. I meant it all. I love people, I love this city, I loved the experience and I wanted to get that message across above everything else.

It was also a really good shot at people who hadn't been able to previously grasp the larger concepts of street art as a social commentary and sort of public notice board. It's like killing folks with kindness. I used to really get off on getting up in front of people and I'd walk out into Astor Place and get up a big silver I Love You on the cube in front of twenty or thirty people. I think that had a lot of effect on different types of people. I think so many people who wanted to be mad couldn't help but feel good.

More of the interview and gallery content can be found at Artist's page-iloveyougraffiti.com

Daniel Molina

http://dreamscapevisions.com/