User:Ereed23/sandbox

Reception
Copied from Draft:The Faith of Graffiti

In his review of The Faith of Graffiti, educator and philosopher Monroe Beardsley criticized Mailer for romanticizing the graffiti artist as a protagonist who uses his art to make a significant statement about the society around him. Corrine Robins of The New York Times observed that Mailer's writing lacked commentary on individual pieces and only focused on broader graffiti trends.

Revisions: January 20, 2020

In his review of The Faith of Graffiti, educator and philosopher Monroe Beardsley criticizes Mailer for romanticizing the graffiti artist. His analysis claims that Mailer places too much emphasis on the artist as a protagonist who uses his art to make a significant statement about the society around him. Beardsley also argues that Mailer is naive in comparing the works of the graffiti writers and those of well-known Renaissance artists such as Michelangelo. Of Mailer's interview with Mayor Lindsay, Beardsley asserts that there is a distinct difference between some forms of graffiti and outright defacement. In his final statements, Beardsley concludes in agreement with Mailer, that though the act of tagging city property with graffiti may be a criminal act, in some cases it also helps improve the aesthetic of the otherwise bland architecture.

Corrine Robins of The New York Times observed that Mailer's wrining lacked commentary on individual pieces and only focused on broader graffiti trends.

Copied from Draft:The Faith of Graffiti

Because Faith both glorified the graffiti artist and seemed to advocate for graffiti as an "indigenous art form" that should be "celebrated", Mailer's essay was controversial at its first publication and might be even more so today. Corrine Robins of The New York Times observes that Mailer's writing lacked commentary on individual pieces and only focused on broader graffiti trends.

In his review of Faith, Monroe Beardsley criticizes Mailer for romanticizing the graffiti artist and comparing them to Renaissance artists. He claims Mailer placed too much emphasis on the artist and graffiti as a social statement. In order to declare graffiti as a form of art, one can not simply focus on the intentions of the artist, but must evaluate the tools the artist uses to create his masterpiece and the surface on which he creates it. Beardsley concludes that though graffiti may be a criminal act, in some cases it also helps improve the aesthetic of the otherwise bland architecture.

Revisions: January 26, 2020

Because Faith both glorified the graffiti artist and seemed to advocate for graffiti as an "indigenous art form" that should be "celebrated", Mailer's essay was controversial at its first publication and might be even more so today.

Two days prior to the publication of Faith, The New York Times published a review of the work by novelist and art critic Corinne Robins. In her review, Robbins begins by paying respect to graffiti as a form of art. She highlights the practice as an innocent act of rebellion against the drab advertisements that line the subway cars and cityscapes. In evaluating Mailer's writing, she quickly asserts that Mailer did a disservice to graffiti by using the work as a platform for his own political gain. She illustrates how Mailer uses the piece to highlight the flaws in the current administration as a way to point out that the people had elected the wrong candidate to the mayor's office. She then ends the review discussing Mailer's failure to produce commentary on individual pieces of graffiti, which she asserts is an injustice to the art.

Defining Faith
The term "faith" lies at the core of Mailer's essay. In fact, some scholars suggest that to understand FOG, one has to look at Mailer's cumulative works of the time. Specifically, the concept of faith links FOG to The White Negro, an essay Mailer wrote seventeen years prior. In his analysis of the graffiti movement of the 1970s, Birzin correlates the use of faith in FOG with term as it appears in The White Negro. By doing so, he asserts that graffiti is simply a means by which Mailer illustrates the collective ideology against the authority of the state.

The Name A-I
By assuming the name A-I (Aesthetic-Investigator), Mailer asserts himself into the graffiti culture. He not only assigns himself a tag, but also establishes himself as the alpha, implying he is the first of his time to take a critical look into the culture of graffiti.

Hip and Graffiti Culture
Throughout FOG, Mailer draws a connection between his ideology of hip and the culture of graffiti that arose in New York City during the 1970s. Taken from his earlier work, The White Negro, the term hip refers to acting on one's instincts regardless of consequences or the perception of one's actions. The hipster culture is brought to life in FOG through Mailer's discussion of Cay 161, in which he details Cay's violent acts of stealing a van and running from the police. In doing so, Mailer assigns Cay 161 as a symbol of hip within the graffiti community. Similarly, by defining Cay 161 as hip and linking him to the birth of the graffiti movement in New York City in connection to Taki 183, Birzin argues that Mailer elevated changed the trajectory of the graffiti art movement.