I had a minimal exposure to graffiti. Years back, just by looking at the political parties' paintings in my hometown, I thought graffiti is a form of promotion that is economical and could appeal to the masses. Though it has different levels of visual and emotional appeals. My exposure to the essentiality of graffiti was when I watched Bangalore Days (2014). The movie made me realise that graffiti is an expression for some. and an offense to others.  Later during lockdown I came across Mario Miranda and similar artists who are revered for beautifying the walls. Those walls independent of the place they are situated at have become a landmark or a spot to spend time at. That made me wonder to what extent commissioned wall arts were considered popular art and not low art.  A few years later, I engaged with graffiti in its context, in its essence where it is serving its purpose - Church Street, Bengaluru. I noticed it helped the passersby feel more connected to the space and allowed them to be more themselves when posing in front of it, which includes me and my friends.  These experiences gave me the thought that for graffiti to be not considered as low culture, it has to be drawn in such a place by a person of certain standards. For example, Marco Santini’s Graffiti that was at the Museum of Art and Photography, Bangalore for two years was valued and fancied upon. So to the art, is it the artist and space that adds value, I wonder. The aesthetics of the graffiti plays a huge role in considering whether it is appealing visually though the message it conveys might be infamous or less talked about. Piqued by the multifaceted impression of the aesthetics of graffiti, the below paragraphs look at the graffiti through the Rasa Theory.  It is to be noted that the aesthetic values  attached to an art can be looked at two ways, one is how our brain reacts to it, the other being the socio-cultural factors that influence an individual. Neuroaesthetics studies the brain's response to aesthetic stimuli. In a study, it is found that both aesthetic and unaesthetic paintings activate the frontal and motor regions of the cortex. Ironically, aesthetic images activated the motor region less while unaesthetic activated it more. Zeki, the author interpreted that motor regions are activated so that the person can escape from the unaesthetic stimuli (Kelleher). Thus, it is evident that the idea of aesthetics comes from the standards set by society. The context in which the image is placed, the existing knowledge of the viewer, socio-cultural values are some of the crucial factors that determine the aesthetic value of any graffiti (Sturken et al, 60).  Contextualising this in Bengaluru, graffiti from RT Nagar, Yelahanka, Malleshwaram, St. Mark's Road and Lalbagh respectively,  are analysed through the Rasa Theory taken from Bharathamuni’s Natya Shastra.

Rasa means aesthetic pleasure. Navarasas has a deeper understanding than what is seen superficially. Rasa is a result of Sthayi Bhava (permanent emotions), Vyabhichari Bhava (fleeting emotions), Vibhava (stimulating emotions) and Anubhava (consequent emotions). Sthayi bhava is the basic emotion that is felt throughout a performance despite the change in fleeting emotions. Through Sthayi bhava, a rasa is formed, which is expressed by the performer (here graffiti). Vyabhichari bhava is the fleeting emotion that is experienced by the audience/viewers. These two will be employed to analyse the images. 

Image

Sthayi bhava (SB)

SB manifesting into its respective rasa

Vyabichari bhava

In the above image, there is no emotion that is expressed directly and Anubhava is not formed either. In the inner walls of Bengaluru Fort, there are wordings that say "RCB, Ee Sala Cup Namde" (translates to 'RCB, this year the cup is ours). The wording has no link to the place and does not carry any resistance writing. Owing to its incapability of fulfilling the characteristics of graffiti, it could be deemed as unaesthetic.  Though there are multiple narratives and opinions on graffiti and the characteristics it carries, the art in itself is being passed on generations after generations across continents, in various ways. From a toddler scribbling on the wall at home to advertising movies on streets, the essence seems to be creating art and beautifying the space around us. And with every art, there is a story to be understood, explored and shared. 

References 

“Graffiti in India through the Years .” Art Lounge, Art Lounge, 5 Dec. 2022, blog.artlounge.in/blog/2022/12/3/graffiti-in-india-through-the-years.

 Narayanan, Kalanidhi. Aspects of Abhinaya, 2013. Pp 40-46.

Kaur, Nehmat. “Cans & Roses: Guerrilla Artists on Indian Street.” The Economic Times, 2012, m.economictimes.com/cans-roses-guerrilla-artists-on-indian-street/articleshow/15540495.cms. 

Kelleher, Katy. “Ugliness Is Underrated: In Defense of Ugly Paintings.” The Paris Review, 1 Aug. 2018, /www.theparisreview.org/blog/2018/07/31/ugliness-is-underrated-in-defense-of-ugly-paintings/.

 Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Feminisms, 1975, pp. 438–448., doi:10.1007/978-1-349-14428-0_27.

Rogoff, Irit. “Studying Visual Culture.” The Visual Culture Reader, edited by Nicholas Mirzoeff, London, Routledge, 1998, pp. 24-36.