User:Amdoubleu/sandbox

Mailer Synopsis Draft
In Part 1, Mailer accepts the assignment to write about graffiti, conducts interviews with with several retired graffiti artists, and discovers the importance of the "name". Rather than take on the "chore" of journalism, Mailer adopts the persona of the "Aesthetic Investigator" (A-I). As the A-I, Mailer interviews four retired graffiti artists: CAY 161, JUNIOR 161, LI'L FLAME, and LURK. The A-I writes that these artists view themselves as part of the lineage of the great Renaissance painters: "as famous in the world of graffiti as Giotto may have been when his name first circulated through the circuits of those workshops that led from Masaccio through Piero della Francesca to Botticelli, Michelangelo, Leonardo and Raphael."

This interview sheds light on the artists' motivations related to their graffiti. There seems to be an agreement that there is something spiritual about the act. As the A-I notes, "...the ego is capitol convertible to currency by use of the name." Through time, effort, and dedication, these artists strive to get their chosen names "...in a place where people don't know how you could do it, how you could get up there," and as CAY 161 states, "You got to make them think." The "name", in this instance, serves to challenge authority in ways the artists may not be able to do in their daily lives. Marking their names in dangerous territory-- a venture seemingly centered around poverty, crime, and even friendship-- indicates a certain overpowering of those in positions of authority: : "the name," says Cay, "is the faith of graffiti".

Part 2 details A-I's interviews with additional graffiti artists, this time accompanied by photographer Jon Naar. Although these artists admit to "inventing" (stealing) paint and....

Part 3 details the A-I's trip to Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in an attempt to gain further insight into the world of graffiti. Since this is the shortest section of Mailer's essay, we can only assume the museum did not provide the insight or inspiration he hoped it would. While considering the artistic influences of graffiti artists, the A-I suggests that graffiti is an "alluvial delta, the mud-caked mouth of a hundred painterly streams". The A-I decides some sort of artistic telepathy must be at play and, ultimately, that "art begot art" through the flow of some "psychic sea"

Part 4, details a conversation between A-I and the out-going mayor of New York, John Lindsay. During this discussion, they examine Lindsay's view that graffiti was a "dirty shame" committed by "insecure cowards". A-I notes the development of "the ugliest architecture in the history of New York" during Lindsay's time as mayor and considers that this may have been an effort to curtail the impact of graffiti on New York's reputation.

However, A-I begins to understand that not many tourists could differentiate between subway graffiti and that which could be found in public restrooms and may assume any graffiti announces the presence of criminals. With this in mind, A-I begins to understand how "the fear of the insane graffiti writer in the self" shaped responses to the act from both city officials and tourists.

In Part 5, the final portion of the essay, Mailer speaks on the state of art and the power of graffiti in the local zeitgeist. Mailer believes that society's interference in the continued evolution of art indicates the potential approach of an apocalypse. During this time, New York City accepts "the erased" de Kooning painting just as they accept the cleaned space previously filled by graffiti rather than the graffiti itself. Graffiti and the culture and class it represents consumes the local government to the point it becomes almost lawless in its treatment of artists in an attempt to stop the act. This separation of art-graffiti in particular-and the classes to which it speaks further indicates the local zeitgeist of the '70s.[25]