Here’s a great site, it’s been around for a while but I forgot about it…. http://otherthings.com/grafarc/flash/view.htm
The author documents walls of graffiti and how they change over time, it’s great. It shows the changing of the environment by human agency and is therefore archaeology (cf. http://www.archaeology.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_archaeology_archive.html#107255655726655576 ) .
But who cares, it’s quite pretty too!
Well, I agree in the fact that is quite pretty; in fact I particularly apreciate this kind of art. However, I don’t think that it could be considered archaeology. First because it doesn’t use any of the archaeological methods, and second due to the fact that it registers the change in the walls in the opposite way archaeologist work, I mean, from the earliest to the latest, assisting himself to the changes.
The nearest example I can think about is building archaeology, and as you know it investigates (mostly) the changes suffered in buildings throughout the centuries, by the changing in techniques, restorations, etc.
There are quite a lot of examples about studying ancient (re)paintings in the walls (just as graffitis), but the method used is very different, digging microstratigraphically to understand those repaintings.
In conclusion, and to link the subject with landscape, it is not possible to record landscapes of the past, so our approach would not be synchronous.
We can consider this “graffiti archaeology” as an ethnographic study, or even if you want art historic, but definitively not archaeological.
no, no, no Luis!
The project is using the law of superimposition which is what makes archaeology possible; the photographer can watch the development of the walls through the overlaying of new paintings. This is analogous to the studying of old, comtemporarily made maps to follow land use change through time. This site documents the visual impact of walls through time. Landscape archaeologists wil also use old photos, taken at the time of study, to help understand the past too.
One doesn’t have to dig to be an archaeologist microstratigraphically or otherwise there are other techniques and this may just be a new one.
Well, I don’t think that just because they are using the law of superimposition they are doing archaeology. Binford looked at the nunamiut remains in different places, but again he was not doing archaeology. However, that studies could be useful for archaeology, in terms of studying other buildings, walls… and understanding the continuous process of change (rather quick in this case).
The study of maps, photos, etc, are also different techniques which could be applied to the archaeological work; and in my opinion we are trying to “reconstruct” the past through their remains. If you are not studying that remains (monuments, written sources, maps, photos….) but making them you are not an archaeologist (in my opinion, of course); you could be considered a chronicler, a photographer, an architect, or whatever.
Registering the present is not reconstructing the past, although it could be very useful for that operation.
Well, I am afraid that my understanding of archaeology extends to the depths of time team and what sister has told me! But what is the difference between recording ‘finds’ by digging them out of the ground and labelling them, and photographing the evidence? Photographic data does not dishevel or disrupt the nature of the finds in question and so if it can be considered a legitimate way to record archaeology i would be in favour of it. From an architectural and Painters point of view. It seems to be a strong argument in favour of well composed art work and also promotes the idea that however beautiful an artwork is, it has its life and is replacable, not sacred! Also that architects are not truth sayers and cannot always see the shitty state their designs will be reduced to in years to come. Enter: the graffitti artists, to beautify and fill the concrete jungle will colour and excitement!