An emerging art world: The de-subculturalization and artification process of graffiti and pixação in São Paulo

Abstract

Graffiti art and street art have been increasingly described as an artistic movement, with a constant presence in the streets, but also in galleries and museums. In this article we use the term urban art to define this institutionalized category, originating from informal street expressions. In the specific context of the city of São Paulo (Brazil), most of the social actors that make up this art world have backgrounds linked to graffiti and pixação. These two urban subcultures are linked to informal forms of appropriation of the urban space through illicit inscriptions. In this article, we aim, on the one hand, to describe the features and singularities of urban art as an emerging art world and, on the other, to understand how careers are developed in this universe. The empirical data derives from a qualitative research (in-depth interviews and ethnographic observation) developed during the past three years.

Keywords

art worlds careers graffiti São Paulo street art subcultures urban art

Street art is a polysemic and ambiguous category. On the one hand, it might be seen in the context of informal and unauthorized urban space expressions (Ross, 2016). On the other hand, it can be understood as an institutionalized art movement (Banet-Weiser, 2011; Bengtsen, 2014; Molnár, 2018; Schacter, 2014). Definitions aside, the reality is that street art has moved from occupying a disruptive and clandestine position on the margins into one closer to the cultural mainstream (Schacter, 2014; Young, 2014). Such ambivalence makes using the concept problematic as it may allude to divergent manifestations. For this reason, in this article, we adopted the term urban art to designate an art movement marked by commercial, regulated and commissioned practices, largely non-transgressive, that are essentially rooted in the worlds of graffiti and street art.

The urban art world has developed from two main fields of action that set the parameters for the development of professional careers. The first concerns art created in public space. Studies have demonstrated the crucial role played by public authorities in promoting initiatives in this field, thus turning urban art into one of the most desired formats in public art (Evans, 2016; Guinard and Margier, 2018; Mendelson-Shwartz and Mualam, 2020; Pavoni, 2019). But urban art is not merely confined to the city streets – which brings us to the second field of action. It exists in a range of different contexts, pointing us to its somewhat polymorphic character. Urban art not only ranges across popular and media cultures (Banet-Weiser, 2011; Molnár, 2018; Ross et al., 2020), it also penetrates the more elitist field of the art market and the museum (Bengtsen, 2014; Campos and Sequeira, 2018; Wells, 2016).

In this article, we seek to unravel the processes of career refashioning of several social actors with a background linked to the practices of illegal graffiti and pixação.¹ We will argue that this career refashioning springs from a number of social processes that contributed to the appreciation of this type of aesthetic works and, consequently, to the multiplication of opportunities for remuneration in this field. Like what is happening across the globe, we are witnessing the gradual de-subculturalization of some forms of graffiti and pixação. In the literature on graffiti and street art several authors have highlighted the dynamics of professionalization, commodification and cooptation (Banet-Weiser, 2011; Kramer, 2010; Molnár, 2018; Ross et al., 2020; Snyder, 2009), as well as of artification and institutionalization (Bengtsen, 2014; Campos, 2021; Campos and Sequeira, 2018). These processes have opened up a new field of opportunities for former and current members of these urban subcultures, since the skills acquired in informal contexts reveal themselves as assets that can be capitalized on in professionalized visual arts (public art, commercial decoration, graphic art, etc.). Some authors have highlighted precisely the entrepreneurship linked to certain types of subcultural milieus (McRobbie, 1997; Snyder, 2016, 2018). We argue that in order to understand these processes is it useful to refer to the DIY career perspective that has been applied to other youth subcultures (Bennett, 2018; Haenfler, 2018; Threadgold, 2018).

This article aims at exploring this question by considering the specific context of the city of São Paulo (Brazil). This is one of the biggest cities in Latin America and, for decades, has been a world-renowned centre of urban art, something which is reflected in the international visibility of artists such as OS GÉMEOS, KOBRA, NUNCA, TINHO, among others. However, with rare exceptions (Caldeira, 2012, 2015; Chastanet, 2007; Dabéne, 2020; Gupta, 2015; Pardue, 2007), this is still a little-explored context in international research. This relative invisibility is hard to understand, especially considering the uniqueness of the manifestations that spring from this city such as pixação. We aim to fill in this gap with recent empirical data that reveals the emergence and consolidation of urban art in this context.

Methodological note

The empirical basis of this article is drawn from a research project carried out between 2017 and 2020. Subjacent to the methodological approach there is a theoretical perspective that sees urban art as an emergent art world (Becker, 1982), making it crucial to analyse the practices and representations of different social actors. Consequently, in São Paulo, between 2019 and 2020, we conducted 30 in-depth interviews with a diverse range of social agents:² 13 artists (9 graffiti-writers and 4 pixadores),³ 3 artist-gallerists, and 14 cultural entrepreneurs and agents in the art world (4 gallerists, 5 cultural producers, and 5 curators). In the case of artists specifically, the profile corresponded to individuals with experience in illegal graffiti and pixação and who currently are being remunerated for their work either exclusively or in parallel with their other activities. All the interviews, were semi-structured, following a flexible script, adapted to the interviewees’ different profiles. The script relating to artists sought to understand: (a) biographical trajectories (b) artistic practices (in the street, gallery, etc.) (c) representations (around graffiti/pixação and street art, the social actors, practices, symbolic and economic dimensions, etc.). Beyond interviews, the ethnographic approach from a previous project developed between 2016 and 2017 (Leal, 2018) allowed us to have a close understanding of this community based on participation in various events and social spaces (exhibitions, mural painting, etc).

Emergence and metamorphosis of graffiti and pixação in São Paulo

Urban subcultures

This article concerns a field of research marked by a degree of disagreement regarding its terminology (Blanché, 2015; Ross, 2016). The lexical differences stem, first, from the specialist field of those classifying it. Certain approaches are centred on the social and cultural dimensions of the phenomenon, while some others highlight aesthetic and communicational issues. Second, this is a multifaceted and complex research subject. Certain cultural fields are intricately linked and in permanent mutation, giving rise to subgenres and new cultural phenomena. In the specialist literature we encounter the terms graffiti (Ferrell, 1996; Macdonald, 2001; Phillips, 1996), post-graffiti (Waclawek, 2011), graffiti art (Austin, 2001, 2010; Novak, 2017; Stewart, 2009), subway art (Cooper and Chalfant, 1984), muralism (Mendelson-Shwartz and Mualam, 2020), street art (Bengtsen, 2014; Schacter, 2014; Young, 2014), or urban art (Blanché, 2015; Campos, 2021; Campos and Barbio, 2021; Hoppe, 2014; Pavoni, 2019). Often these terms overlap and get mixed up. It is therefore important to be clear as to how we employ some of these concepts. We adopt here the following base formulation:

graffiti typically refers to words, figures, and images that have been drawn, marked, scratched, etched, sprayed, painted, and/or written on surfaces where the owner of the property (whether public of private) has NOT given permission to the perpetrator. Likewise, street art refers to stencils, stickers, and noncommercial images/posters that are affixed to surfaces and objects (e.g. mailboxes, garbage cans, street signs) where the owner of the property (whether public of private) has NOT given permission to the perpetrator. (Ross, 2016: 1)

Graffiti and pixação correspond to distinct cultural and historical phenomena. Beyond that, they also have different characteristics and ways of leaving their mark in the city. Let us start with graffiti. This cultural expression appeared in the 1970s in the United States, with New York and Philadelphia as its epicentres (Austin, 2001; Castleman, 1982; Ley and Cybriwsky, 1974; Powers, 1999; Stewart, 1989). It rapidly spread around the globe and is now a global expression albeit with local idiosyncrasies. In São Paulo, graffiti appears in the 1980s, inspired by the hip-hop movement, with links to local public art (Franco, 2009; Gitahy, 1999; Leal, 2018) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Graffiti-writers painting during the event Sopa de Letras, organized by the ZN Lovers crew (São Paulo, 2016)

Pixação,⁴ in its turn, is a sociocultural and aesthetic phenomenon distinct from graffiti and with the particularity of having been born in São Paulo during the 1980s (Franco, 2009; Lassala, 2014; Pereira, 2018). It later inspired the emergence of similar practices in other Brazilian cities where it developed new aesthetic features and, in some cases, acquired a new name – such as xarpi (an anagram of pixar) from Rio de Janeiro. The pixos – the inscriptions of pixação – are characterized by monochromatic typography, straight and longitudinal (see Figure 2). This graphism, often incomprehensible to the uninitiated, points to individuals or groups formed among its protagonists (Pereira, 2018). The selection of surfaces to be painted is another distinctive feature of pixação: usually made on building tops, something which requires skills beyond painting such as, for instance, the ability to climb without special equipment.

Figure 2.

Pixação in central São Paulo (2020)

Particularities aside, a variety of elements allow an understanding of graffiti and pixação as ramifications of a common phenomenon. In São Paulo both practices emerged in the same period and originate from the peripheries. Pixadores and graffiti-writers – mostly males, young, black, many of whom from backgrounds of extreme economic and social vulnerability – share ties of proximity and affection either from socializing in the city streets or grown up in the same neighbourhood. So, it is common to know people with experience in both practices or who transition between them (Franco, 2009; Leal, 2018).

A basic feature of these typically urban expressions is the battle for visibility and the appropriation of the territory through the inscription of unauthorized painted symbols (Campos, 2013; Castleman, 1982; Ley and Cybriwsky, 1974). We might say that these practices are inscribed in worlds characterized by informality and a gregarious, ludic, and pleasurable dimension. Associated with these worlds, we find, also, the risk, the adrenaline, the ‘recreative transgression’ (Ferrell, 1996). For that reason, there is no economic logic subjacent to these practices which, in many cases, actually implies a substantial financial expenditure. To a varied set of authors, these phenomena should be understood within the framework of what is known as youth subcultures (Campos, 2013, 2015; Macdonald, 2001; Pereira, 2018). We understand, in this context, the nature of the subcultural as something pointing to social contexts that present a subterranean, subaltern or subversive character (Thornton, 1997).

The core elements of these practices are also the aspects that provoke repressive and punitive actions from political powers and institutions (Austin, 2001; Ferrell, 1996). Graffiti and pixação involve disruptive manifestations, generally classified as vandalism by public authorities. This problematic relationship that has followed both practices since their emergence in São Paulo is sometimes intensified, and at other times less salient, but never ceases completely. From time to time there are anti-graffiti programmes with task forces whose goal is to repress and punish those caught painting without permission.⁵ In this context, pixação is usually the most repressed phenomenon, due to its highly disruptive nature. This feature derives from two main factors. On the one hand, this is a high-risk exercise, degenerating with some frequency into violent situations (and death), which involves invading private property such as residential buildings. On the other hand, aesthetic consensus is absent in the context of pixo since it consists of a highly codified language that perceives its own strangeness as a distinctive element in the landscape. Dabéne (2020: 87) sees it as a political expression, reflective of Brazilian social fractures:

pixação does not only challenge ‘good’ taste, it shakes the very foundations of the Brazilian, and above all Paulistano, stratified social order.. . . [Pixadores] reverse the consolidated social and racial hierarchies, symbolically showing they can appropriate private properties from which they are excluded. By intervening on the top of the highest buildings, they reverse the pattern of symbolic domination.

As different studies have shown, these unauthorized visual interventions are characterized mostly as ‘out-of-place,’ as sources of disorder and pollution⁶ (Cresswell, 1992; Ferrell, 1996) and, therefore, as a social problem that needs solving.

However, it is also important to mention that, in parallel to the more punitive and antagonistic initiatives from public authorities, processes gradually emerged that edge towards finding common ground and encouraging collaborative approaches. Since the turn of the millennium, academic surveys have placed significant focus on this growing tendency in several cities, particularly on the higher incentives for the production of urban art regulated by local authorities (Campos, 2021; Campos and Barbio, 2021; Guinard and Margier, 2017; Mendelson-Shwartz and Mualam, 2020; Novak and Yousof, 2014; Raposo, 2019). São Paulo followed this trend. On the one hand, these dynamics may be understood as strategies aiming to control and to domesticate these phenomena by encouraging more artistic expressions in public spaces. On the other hand, these initiatives also include projects jointly developed by both parties, especially in the case of graffiti,⁷ showcasing the agency of graffiti-writers in this context. These partnerships began in the 1990s, mainly via socio-education projects (Franco, 2009; Macedo 2016; Pereira, 2018). From the 2000s onwards, they started to include exhibitions and murals (Leal, 2018). In this period, specific policies were created for stimulus, such as ProAC Hip Hop and the MAR – Museu de Arte Urbana (Museum of Urban Art),⁸ that guaranteed a certain autonomy in the scope of the projects, with special impact in the city’s peripheral regions.

Approaching the cultural mainstream

We mentioned at the beginning of the article that the term street art is somewhat misleading, which is why we picked the term urban art instead. In addition, there is the fact that, as mentioned by Hoppe (2014), an anglophone notion of urban art is not often used, with the preferred term generally being street art. But in some non-Anglo-American contexts its use is common in a broad sense (Blanché, 2015; Campos, 2021; Raposo, 2019), involving expressions from various street visual interventions (political murals, graffiti, pixação, street art).

The definition of urban art that we use in this article derives above all from a sociological approach. Urban art is, in our understanding, an art world (Becker, 1982) that is still being formed, albeit in a stage of consolidation. Although this is an art world composed of artists from a wide variety of backgrounds, it is essentially linked to the subcultures of graffiti, street art and pixação. Second, we have taken into consideration the singularity of the aesthetic language and art practices. From this perspective we cannot ignore the fact that a variety of authors and academic institutions speak of it as an original art movement, already with its own place in the history of art⁹ (Waclawek, 2011; Wells, 2016, Campos and Câmara, 2019).

One of the main features of the urban art world derives from the fact of it being validated by a range of agents and institutions with influence in political and cultural domains. This aesthetic and cultural validation grants admittance to some works and their authors into the higher realm of art. As a result, our definition of urban art excludes all those expressions that, on the one hand, are socially catalogued as forms of pollution and vandalism and that, on the other hand, are perceived as lacking in aesthetic or conceptual qualities that might raise them to the status of art.¹⁰ Even so, we are aware that the boundary of what separates vandalism from art, or the beautiful from the ugly, is tenuous and clearly the fruit of historical developments. The recognition of urban art as an art movement is largely a good example of that. In our view, the gradual institutionalization of graffiti and street art is articulated in a dynamic of de-subculturalization and artification. The de-subculturalization corresponds to a social process through which certain initially subordinated and repressed cultural fields and goods undergo a slow process of requalification under a variety of agents. Dick Hebdige (1979) speaks of the process of ‘incorporation’ of subcultural expressions that mostly happens through a dual process: first, through the commodification of certain subcultural creations that are assimilated into the market; second, through the efforts of dominating social actors (media, cultural industries, political institutions, the market) that normalize and legitimize certain peripheral cultural formulae thereby fostering a process of ideological assimilation.

Several authors put stress precisely on the dynamics of commodification and cooptation of graffiti and street art (Banet-Weiser, 2011; Molnár, 2018; Ross et al., 2020) that contributed to its approximation to the cultural mainstream. As we see it, the de-subculturalization of graffiti occurs through the reconfiguration of discourses that become centred on the aesthetic qualities of goods and less on the disruptive and threatening potential of this social practice. The aestheticization of graffiti and pixação (Campos, 2015) permits the creation of a new narrative where the aesthetic quality of works makes the deviant practice from which it originates more acceptable. In this sense, there is a resignification of these practices. The deviant character becomes glamorized, conferring on the aesthetic product something distinctive, that allows it to acquire a specific value in the market. Hence, in the context of urban art, a subcultural biography and street practices are valued as a mark of authenticity and a stamp of singularity (Wells, 2016). The wider social acceptance and approximation of certain cultural and aesthetic goods of the cultural mainstream result from this process of de-subculturalization.

Moving into the art world

Another relevant social process in this context is artification, which ‘designates the transformation of non-art into art’ that results from ‘a combination of processes – practical and symbolic, organizational and discursive – by which people agree to identify an object or an activity as art’ (Shapiro and Heinich, 2012: 20–1). This is not a linear process, but rather a composite one, involving an interconnected set of dynamics which include the following (Shapiro, 2019): displacement, renaming, shifting categories, organizational and institutional change, functional differentiation, redefining time, legal consolidation, patronage, aesthetic formalization, and intellectualization. We may generally conclude that all these microprocesses have happened or are happening interconnectedly and globally in the field of graffiti and street art.¹¹

The case of São Paulo follows the global tendencies with a growing social appreciation, first of graffiti and street art, and, more recently and less pronouncedly, of pixação. Artification permits certain graffiti-writers and pixadores to attain ‘artist’ status, with their works being now classified as ‘public art’¹² or ‘contemporary art’. As a corollary of this process, several artists whose backgrounds are linked with graffiti or pixação have enjoyed substantial national and international prestige. This results in the growing regulation, institutionalization, and musealization of these practices that contribute to legitimizing and consolidating this category as a sui generis art movement. It is important, however, to stress that this process is more intense and started earlier in the case of graffiti. For its part, pixação still preserves a clandestine and subversive image.

The emergence of urban art as a singular art movement in the context of São Paulo is marked by events which became emblematic due to the importance they assumed. Such events reveal the first movement of graffiti and pixação towards institutional art spaces. In the case of graffiti, we might mention the three editions of Mostra Paulista de Grafite (São Paulo’s Graffiti Exhibition at Museu da Imagem e do Som – MIS, in 1992, 1993 and 1994); the participation of graffiti-writers in the Street Art (Tate Modern, 2008) and Art in the Streets (MOCA-LA, 2011) exhibitions; also De dentro para fora/De fora para dentro (Inside Out/Outside In, at Museu de Arte de São Paulo – MASP, 2010), as well as the editions of the Bienal Internacional Graffiti Fine Art (Graffiti Fine Art International Biennale, which has taken place more or less regularly since 2010). As for pixação, we might point to the participation of pixadores in the 29th Biennale of São Paulo (2010), the 7th Biennale of Berlin (2012) and the collective exhibitions Né dans la rue (Fundação Cartier, Paris, 2009), Up (Martinez Gallery, New York, 2018) and Corners of(f) Society (Colab Gallery, Weil Am Rhein, 2018).

The events that inaugurated the shift of these practices into institutional spaces of art reveal distinctions in the way in which this process took place in the case of graffiti and in the case of pixação. In the case of graffiti, it is important to note that the exhibitions – both in the national and international context – are thematic, which means exclusively dedicated to street art (here understood in its broad sense). In the case of pixação, two features should be highlighted. The first concerns the participation of pixação, from the very beginning, in exhibitions dedicated to contemporary art. In addition, it is important to note the predominance of international exhibitions. Associated with this internationalization is, in our opinion, a particular interest in the singular character of this expression, whose origin is essentially local (São Paulo). The extravagant, unknown, and innovative character of pixação has certainly triggered the interest of several international institutions. The opposite is true in the national context, where the stigma associated with pixação has slowed its acceptance as an artistic format.

It should also be noted, from the point of view of the visibility and international legitimization of this São Paulo art movement, that a range of literary and cinematographic works were crucial. These were the books Graffiti World – Street Art from Five Continents (Ganz and Manco, 2004), Ttssss . . . A grande arte da pixação em São Paulo (Boleta, 2006), Pixação: São Paulo signature (Chastanet, 2007), Estética marginal vols #1 and #2 (Moriyama, 2009; Szacher, 2012), Graffiti SP (Czapski, 2013) and The World Atlas of Street Art and Graffiti (Schacter, 2013); as well as the documentaries Pixo (Wainer and Oliveira, 2009), Graffiti Fine Art (Levy, 2011), Cidade Cinza (Valiengo and Mesquita, 2013), Pixadores ( Escandari, 2014) and Olhar instigado (Gomes and Lion, 2017).

Between the street and the gallery

In the urban art world there are two main production fields that shape reputations and define careers: the urban public space and the art gallery.¹³

Painting in the streets

When it comes to urban art produced for public spaces, we are talking about commissioned work that may result from a multitude of initiatives. We enter, for that reason, into the field of public art, which is regulated by a number of different entities. This arena has been inaccessible to the world of pixação in the sense that, as we have seen, this is a highly disruptive type of expression.¹⁴ The production of street works is particularly relevant since, from an identity viewpoint, it constitutes the founding principle of this art movement. So, painting in public spaces is a prerequisite for the artist’s engagement with this art movement, being thus essential not only financially but also from a symbolic perspective. Street painting involves a set of skills and techniques developed from the artist’s interaction with the urban environment. In addition, there is an ethos linked to street cultures and to the creation of public aesthetic works that is often reasserted as a mark of the artist’s authenticity and singularity. Street work invariably becomes the first platform for visibility and acquisition of prestige, establishing the artist’s style and singularity.

Since the beginning of the millennium, the conditions have been created allowing for the proliferation of urban art projects in the public space. All the big cities that have been establishing themselves as world centres of urban/street art have a range of initiatives involving the creation of works in public space (Guinard and Margier, 2017; McAuliffe, 2012; Pavoni, 2019). Consequently, it has become natural to see urban art as a legitimate and (foremost) form of public art, while new funding opportunities have developed that helped validate the efforts of the artists in this field.

Even though São Paulo has for some years been considered one of the world capitals of graffiti and street art, the systematic occurrence of festivals and large-scale mural painting could be considered a recent phenomenon. In this regard, it is worth mentioning the painting of large collective murals funded by the Municipal Department of Culture such as those in the Túnel da Noite Ilustrada (Illustrated Night Tunnel – 2016) and Avenida 23 de Maio (23 May Avenue – 2015) – the latter declared by the authorities to be the largest mural in Latin America.¹⁵ Beyond that, we should highlight the O.bra Festival (2016), the first festival dedicated to murals. In 2020, during the lockdown measures due to the coronavirus, there was a significant increase of murals in the city created by different artists and cultural producers, benefiting from both private and public financial support, which led local newspapers to record the phenomenon as an ‘explosion’ of murals in the city.¹⁶ During this period, we could mention another festival, the NaLata – International Urban Art Festival and an adapted edition of MAR – Museum of Urban Art, a City Hall initiative focused exclusively on mural paintings on gables.

Entering the gallery

The gradual legitimization and internationalization of São Paulo’s urban art has also translated into a more consolidated presence in exhibition spaces. This process results from the surge of spaces dedicated to exhibitions and community-oriented social events. Stores and/or urban art galleries ranging widely in size and popularity began to pop up in response to the growing interest and demand for this type of works. The Choque Cultural¹⁷ gallery is acknowledged as being a forerunner by working exclusively with urban art. As their founders explain, the project was launched between 2002 and 2004 to showcase non-conventional art projects. Still currently active, Choque Cultural is known for showcasing a wide range of art objects – from prints to stickers. Apart from the galleries funded by people who already had a stake in São Paulo’s art world – such as Choque Cultural – as time went by new galleries and cultural spaces appeared, funded by graffiti-writers. Although in many ways lacking the social capital associated with the wider universe of art, these galleries became important storehouses for new artists, while also developing into hubs for socializing, training, and learning. A7MA Gallery¹⁸ is a paradigmatic example: located in the upper-class neighbourhood of Vila Madalena, it has become a reference point that remains active to this day.¹⁹

If public space is, in a certain way, the natural space for urban art creators, the gallery represents expansion into a different reality and the creation of a new route for career building. However, the street as a concept and lived experience is always present. The act of street painting and, consequently, a trajectory linked to graffiti and pixação, acquires market value. The bold, marginal, but equally innovative character of these aesthetic expressions is the definitive mark of this art movement. This issue is quite well described by one of our interviewees, who speaks of ‘street fetish’:

The city is a means, a means of communication. Collectors are craving for it. It’s clear that contemporary art, from outside the street, sells, always will. But then there’s this fetish of having a piece of the street at home, something you see out there, while driving with a friend from work and you say ‘See this mural? I have one this guy’s works at home.’ There’s this fetish. (graffiti-writer/urban artist, 42 years old, 2019)

The gallery represents acceptance by the art world, the recognition of an individual work by peers and several agents. However, admittance to the gallery implies dealing with new social codes, ways of behaving and practical reasoning that have little to do with street culture. Hence the importance of there being galleries specialized in urban art or curators/producers that assume the role of mediators, sifting those with the potential to succeed in the scene and contributing to their socialization in the art world. One of our interviewees refers to his entry into the art market in the following terms:

In 2004 I had my first contact with a gallery. [. . .] I had neither support, nor technique, nor anything else. [. . .] I was the first from graffiti [to work with them] [. . .] From a very young age, this is a very complicated art scene. And the people in graffiti, really, we aren’t academics, we learn in the street. [. . .] It suddenly dawned on me: ‘man, I fit in here.’ [. . .] And during this period there was a huge demand, sales increased a lot. [. . .] And I went on networking, and naturally things began falling into place, proposals to go to the USA, to London, China. My work went to lots of places, and it goes, it still goes. (Urban artist/gallery owner, 36 years old, 2020)

New careers and professional roles

The de-subculturalization, artification, and institutionalization of graffiti and pixação are promoted by leading agents with strong influence over the public sphere (mainstream media, political institutions, opinion makers, academics, etc.). The increase in the symbolic appreciation of these expressions facilitates, on the one hand, their transformation into products and also, on the other, a shift in the understanding of these creators as simple amateurs. The production of these visual expressions begins to be seen as remunerated creative work and, consequently, the agent assumes the nature of a professional (or semi-professional) worker. There is, for this reason, a reconfiguration of identity that involves a new categorization of practices and a new set of ambitions.

It makes sense for this reason to consider the idea of a career in this context. The context of graffiti and pixação is originally defined by what Nancy Macdonald (2001) identifies as a ‘moral career’, a career of a subcultural nature founded more on social prestige and peer respect than on the dominant values underpinning, say, economic or educational success. However, it is always possible to reconfigure the elements of this subcultural career so as to channel certain social, technical, practical, or emotional skills into a professional setting. It is precisely this argument that Gregory Snyder (2009) makes in his study of New York graffiti-writers from the first decade of the millennium. Snyder (2016, 2018) stresses the same point that McRobbie (1997) had previously made, namely that in this subcultural context there is an ‘entrepreneurial dynamic (that) has rarely been acknowledged’ (Snyder, 2016: 210). Snyder (2018) believes, for this reason, that certain deviant subcultures offer career possibilities that are used by some individuals. In this context, a set of skills acquired in informal (and illicit) contexts and lacking in validation by the institutions become assets for the development of some careers.

Beyond the dimension of subcultural careers, we might also invoke the notion of DIY careers, such as those analysed by several authors (Bennett, 2018; Haenfler, 2018; Threadgold, 2018). As Andy Bennett (2018) sees it, the DIY model of career building presents an alternative to more conventional forms of professionalization and, in the case of artistic careers, an alternative route to the traditional art trajectory involving the usual legitimizing channels – academia, galleries, critics, museums, etc. Steven Threadgold (2018) argues that youths are able to use their experience in DIY cultures to negotiate career paths in an economic environment that generates precarious work conditions, while trying at the same time to maintain their presence and activity in those subcultures.

The DIY career approach allows us to understand, in a fluid fashion, the transition between the realms of leisure and profession, between the youth world and the adult world. In addition, this approach is also relevant in the sense that it highlights individual agency. This is especially important as it allows us to make sense of the way in which these individuals have adapted and responded to a situation that became favourable to the commercialization of their work.

When it comes to their professionalization or semi-professionalization, graffiti-writers and pixadores find themselves in a similar situation. When analysing the discourses and the trajectories of these artists, the wide-ranging diversity of circumstances and forms of career building stands out. Professionalization rarely means that an artist will dedicate himself exclusively to urban art. What we see, in most cases, is multifaceted careers and the polyvalent management of different projects and creative fields involving, for instance, design, illustration, painting on canvas, murals, etc.

For many people, a career in urban art happens by chance, as circumstances dictate. Many reveal some amazement due to their background in a stigmatized and persecuted subcultural field. Yesterday they were (just) vandals, today they are (also) artists. This new reality causes friction and tensions, as we will see. The following interview with a pixador is evocative of the new light in which careers and social ascension are seen:

As a pixador I see this field in the same way I saw when I was younger: I wanted to be someone, right, I have this ambition of social climbing, to show it’s possible for me, a youth from the periphery to rise socially because of art [. . .] I’m working towards being seen as a contemporary artist, not because of greed, because I think that it’s what is more conceptually close to the power of pixo. (Pixador/urban artist, 35 years old, 2019)

This is a gradual process that could be achieved more or less easily. Yet, in order to be able to develop a career and gain entry into the market, it is crucial to have access to a range of resources and agents working as gatekeepers. The symbolic and economic value of works has been pointed out by several stakeholders that we interviewed who recognize that this is a phenomenon which, although not new, has expanded more rapidly in recent years. In a certain way, urban art is now fashionable, having benefited, since the beginning of the millennium, from a growing exposure to the public. Artists have identified this potential and are aware that the development of their artistic careers derives from these historical circumstances and its emerging opportunities.

I began frequenting artist studios, began offering my services as an assistant. I wanted to be a part of it. [. . .] I can do that, I was learning it in the street. I want to understand how this other side works. That is what interests me. So, I went knocking on the doors of galleries. I managed to get close to big names. [. . .] I did well. And that also made my interest grow with the experience. I couldn’t believe I had managed to get in there. (Graffiti-writer/urban artist, 47 years old, 2019)

However, this movement from the informal and illegal world into the world of institutions and professionalization does not occur without some tensions arising. This issue becomes especially salient when we talk about entering the gallery, which is seen as a slightly alien milieu for those with a street background. These tensions result, in the first place, from the need to assimilate a new social context, which is often revealed to be far distant from their social world. This is often a difficult process of learning that requires the participation of other actors, such as curators, brokers, and gallery owners who act as mentors and mediators. It becomes necessary to develop new social skills associated to a system with its own codes, vocabulary and distinctive forms of recognition:

These days artists need to know how to give a good image; they need to explain their work. They cannot merely create. You can forget those romantic illusions. That a dealer will come, see my work and say, ‘Oh, I will now take your work to Louvre.’ Forget it [. . .] These days, you have to be multiskilled, you have to both work and think at the same time. (Urban artist/gallery owner, 36 years old, 2020)

Yet, they also highlight something relevant to success, which is the capacity to adapt. Gaining entry into the art world, especially the gallery and the art market, gives rise to situations of increased tension and a quest for a place which is not always easy to find. The development of a ‘gallery artist’ identity requires a reconfiguration of practices and perspectives without losing touch with origins, as shown in these interview extracts:

I’m still trying to find stability. I still haven’t reached my goals in this art field. I feel that, this way, I have this conceptual concern and this conceptual purpose of trying to understand what our part is. And so the challenge for myself and my art dealer is having a background in street art while trying to position myself as a contemporary artist, you know? (Pixador/urban artist, 35 years old, 2019)

When I was painting in the street, before going to university, I believed [that what I was doing was art]. After going to university, I realized it wasn’t. That it might be, but not necessarily so. [. . .] I needed more things to justify it than just going out in the street and paint. [. . .] To develop a concept, to research, [. . .] And then I . . . started thinking that I was going to research, to understand contemporary art, and how graffiti might fit there, our how I might justify graffiti in theory . . . like a real academic, bringing graffiti into the academy. (Graffiti-writer/urban artist, 45 years old, 2019)

Informal urban inscriptions have persisted as a historical memory in a spatiotemporal and sociocultural reality that is completely distinct from – if not antagonistic to – the established art world. Since the 1970s these inscriptions have been considered ephemeral and spontaneous forms of communication, embedded in the urban physical space. Not to mention that they appear in the context of symbolic interchanges between members of urban subcultures and often assume an anti-system stance. The ambivalences are, then, the result of the transition from a field originally rooted in these informal, non-monetized, and transgressive practices (Ferrell, 1996; Macdonald, 2001) into a professional and institutional realm that, in large measure, clashes with the ethos and praxis of the original street cultures.

Consequently, there is an ongoing questioning by those involved around the authenticity and singularity of their practices that often results in dissociative phenomena. This dissociation lies at the heart of an identity that swings between the ‘artist’ and the ‘vandal’, while struggling to preserve both as a seal of authenticity. We might even state the existence of a latent conflict that generates divisions and distinctive artistic stances. As mentioned by Young (2014: 161–2), in the street art context, there is ‘a clear perception among many of its practitioners that something has been lost’. Many feel that there has been a perversion of the original movement, that the values and practices of street cultures may be lost under the aggressiveness of the many different capitalist mechanisms of commodification of aesthetic works and creative labour.

As a result, we often see a distinction of both a practical and symbolic order between, on the one hand, informal and illegal street activities and, on the other, legal and institutionalized activities involving collaborations with galleries or the creation of public art. Those involved place themselves in these two fields juggling largely antagonistic values and practices while attempting to define symbolic, social, and spatiotemporal limits between these two worlds. This sometimes implies managing a two-sided career, where the subcultural street occupation coexists with a persona created to deal with the realms of business, art, and institutions. Such dualities and tensions reappear in every conversation:

[I’ve decided to have] a name for the gallery and one for the street. I felt more comfortable this way, and it was then that I finally began to develop my own language, that I began to realize that I would never be able to take graffiti into a gallery and should rather start using the technique to produce works. Then it was beautiful, and I got a huge exposure. Because even though people kept identifying symbols, ‘wow, I’ve seen that in the street’, ‘that other thing you made’, but they kept coming because I have a lot more to show there. (Graffiti-writer/urban artist, 47 years old, 2019)

Conclusion

Urban art has been imposing itself as a an art movement that is highly attractive to mainstream media, blurring the borders between high and low culture, crossing over between popular and highbrow cultures, articulating the street with the gallery and the museum. Its specific character derives from the use of different media and techniques inspired by several forms of visual intervention in the urban space (graffiti, pixação, muralism, public art, etc.). We know that the emergence of urban art results from the intersection between the already mentioned cultural and artistic universes, being also inspired by DIY activist urban cultures. In the case studied, graffiti and, more recently, pixação represent the most significant vehicles for its development. These universes, defined by an ethical or cultural matrix linked to youth street cultures and DIY, to activism and anti-system practices, in some way impart to urban art its singularity and charm.

In this article we have argued that the artification of graffiti, which occurs in parallel with the de-subculturalization of this realm in the social imaginary, was crucial to the emergence of the urban art world. The same processes seem to be present in the case of pixação, albeit moving in a slower and more limited way. These processes generated new opportunities, reconfiguring careers for former and current members of these urban subcultures. A higher investment from public authorities in commissioned street art, the emergence of specialized galleries, or the internationalization of some of these artists reveal a dynamic field in consolidation.

There is a degree of kinship between these and other subcultural and DIY careers that have been identified in international studies. Artists are taking advantage of these new opportunities and capitalizing on a set of competences from their subcultural background. The value of the street experience is widely acknowledged in the market of symbolic goods, reflected in a unique biography and an aesthetic language that challenges the canon. This is a form of capital whose rarity enables it to be commercially exploited. As one of our interviewees put it, the street is ‘fetishized’ and that is what turns urban art into a commodity that must be exploited.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project has been funded with support from the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, grant number IF/01592/2015

Notes

Author biographies

Ricardo Campos (PhD) is a senior researcher at CICS.Nova – Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences, Portugal. He currently coordinates two research projects: Artcitizenship – Young people and the arts of citizenship: activism, participatory culture and creative practices (2019–21), TransUrbArts – Emergent Urban Arts is Lisbon and São Paulo (2016–20), both financed by FCT/MCTES.

Gabriela Leal is a Ph.D. Student in Urban Studies at CICS.Nova - Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences, Portugal. She holds a Master’s degree in Social Anthropology (University of Sao Paulo). Since 2016 she has been studying issues related to urban anthropology, uses of the street, urban epistemologies, and urban visual interventions (especially graffiti and pixação).

References

Austin

(2001) Taking the Train: How Graffiti Art Became an Urban Crisis in New York City. New York: Columbia University Press.

Austin

(2010) More to see than a canvas in a white cube: For an art in the streets. City 14(1–2), doi: 10.1080/13604810903529142.

Banet-Weiser

(2011) Convergence on the street. Cultural Studies 25(4–5), doi: 10.1080/09502386.2011.600553.

Becker

(1982) Art Worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bengtsen

(2014) The Street Art World. Lund: Almendros de Granada Press.

Bennett

(2018) Youth, music and DIY careers. Cultural Sociology 12(2), doi: 10.1177/1749975518765858.

Blanché

(2015) Street Art and related terms. SAUC – Street Art & Urban Creativity Scientific Journal 1(1): 32–39.

Boleta (ed.) (2006) Ttsss . . . A grande arte da pixação em São Paulo. São Paulo: Editora do Bispo.

Caldeira

TPR

(2012) Imprinting and moving around: New visibilities and configurations of public space in São Paulo. Public Culture 24(2), doi: 10.1215/08992363-1535543.

10.

Caldeira

TPR

(2015) Social movements, cultural production, and protests. Current Anthropology 56(S11): 126–136, doi: 10.1086/681927.

11.

Campos

(2013) Graffiti writer as superhero. European Journal of Cultural Studies 16(2): 155–170, doi: 10.1177/1367549412467177.

12.

Campos

(2015) Graffiti, street art and the aestheticization of transgression. Social Analysis 59(3): 17–40, doi: 10.3167/sa.2015.590302.

13.

Campos

(2021) Urban art in Lisbon: Opportunities, tensions and paradoxes. Cultural Trends, https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/09548963.2021.1897779.

14.

Campos

Câmara

(2019) Arte(s) urbana(s). V. Nova de Famalicão: Húmus.

15.

Campos

Barbio

(2021) Public strategies for the promotion of urban art: The Lisbon Metropolitan Area case. City and Community, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1535684121992350.

16.

Campos

Sequeira

(2018) O mundo da arte urbana emergente: contextos e atores: Todas as artes. Revista Luso-Brasileira de Artes e Cultura 1(2): 70–93, doi: 10.21747/21843805/tav1n2a4.

17.

Castleman

(1982) Getting Up: Subway Graffiti in New York. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

18.

Chastanet

(2007) Pixação: São Paulo signature. Paris: XGpress.

19.

Cooper

Chalfant

(1984) Subway Art. London: Thames and Hudson.

20.

Cresswell

(1992) The crucial ‘where’ of graffiti: A geographical analysis of reactions to graffiti in New York. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 10(3), doi: 10.1068/d100329.

21.

Czapski

(2013) Graffiti SP. São Paulo: Bookmix.

22.

Dabéne

(2020) Street Art and Democracy in Latin America. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

23.

Escandari

(dir.) (2014) Pixadores (documentary). Finland: Helsinki Filmi Oy.

24.

Evans

(2016) Graffiti art and the city. In: Ross

(ed.) Routledge Handbook of Graffiti and Street Art. London: Routledge, pp. 168–182.

25.

Ferrell

(1996) Crimes of Style: Urban Graffiti and the Politics of Criminality. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

26.

Franco

(2009) Iconografias da metrópole: Grafiteiros e pixadores representando o contemporâneo. Master’s thesis, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of São Paulo, doi: 10.11606/D.16.2009.tde-18052010-092159.

27.

Ganz

Manco

(2004) Graffiti World: Street Art from Five Continents. London: Thames and Hudson.

28.

Gitahy

(1999) O que é grafitti? São Paulo: Brasiliense.

29.

Gomes

Lion

(dir.) (2017) Olhar instigado (documentary). Brazil: Biondani Projetos e Produções Artísticas, Bossa Nova Films and Expresso 4.

30.

Guinard

Margier

(2018) Art as a new urban norm: Between normalization of the city through art and normalization of art through the city in Montreal and Johannesburg. Cities 77: 13–20.

31.

Gupta

(2015) Pixação and tourist appraisal. Wasafiri 30(2), doi: 10.1080/02690055.2015.1011394.

32.

Haenfler

(2018) The entrepreneurial (straight) edge: How participation in DIY music cultures translates to work and careers. Cultural Sociology 12(2), doi: 10.1177/1749975517700774.

33.

Hebdige

(1979) Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen.

34.

Hoppe

(2014) Urban art as countervisuality? In: Neves

Simoes

(eds) Lisbon Street Art and Urban Creativity: 2014 International Conference. Lisbon: Urbancreativity.org, pp. 260–265.

35.

Kelling

Wilson

(1982) Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic, March.

36.

Kramer

(2010) Painting with permission: Legal graffiti in New York City. Ethnography 11(2): 235–253.

37.

Lachmann

(1988) Graffiti as career and ideology. American Journal of Sociology 94(2): 229–250.

38.

Lassala

(2014) Em nome do pixo: A experiência social e estética do pichador e artista Djan Ivson. PhD thesis, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Mackenzie Presbyterian University, São Paulo.

39.

Leal

G.P.O.

(2018) Cidade: Modos de ler, usar e se apropriar – uma etnografia das práticas de graffiti de São Paulo. Master’s, Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and Human Sciences, University of São Paulo, doi:10.11606/D.8.2019.tde-02052019-140447.

40.

Levy

(dir.) (2011) Graffiti Fine Art (documentary). US: Navigate.

41.

Ley

Cybriwsky

(1974) Urban graffiti as territorial markers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 64(4): 491–505.

42.

Macdonald

(2001) The Graffiti Subculture: Youth, Masculinity and Identity in London and New York. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

43.

Macedo

(2016) Hip-hop SP: Transformações entre uma cultura de rua, negra e periférica (1983–2013). In: Kowarick

Frúgoli

Jr H

(eds) Pluralidade urbana em São Paulo: Vulnerabilidade, marginalidade, ativismos. São Paulo: Ed. 34; FAPESP.

44.

McAuliffe

(2012) Graffiti or street art? Negotiating the moral geographies of the creative city. Journal of Urban Affairs 34(2), doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9906.2012.00610x.

45.

McRobbie

(1997) Second-hand dresses and the role of the ragmarket. In: Gelder

Thornton

(eds) The Subcultures Reader. London: Routledge.

46.

Mendelson-Shwartz

Mualam

(2020) Taming murals in the city: A foray into mural policies, practices, and regulation. International Journal of Cultural Policy, doi: 10.1080/10286632.2020.1722115.

47.

Miles

(1997) Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures. London: Routledge.

48.

Molnár

(2018) The business of urban coolness: Emerging markets for street art. Poetics 71, doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2018.09.006.

49.

Moriyama

(2009) Estética marginal, vol. #1. São Paulo: Zupi Design.

50.

Novak

(2017) Historical dissemination of graffiti art. SAUC – Street Art & Urban Creativity Scientific Journal 3(1): 29–42, https://doi.org/10.25765/sauc.v3i1.61

51.

Novak

Yousof

(2014) Comparison between Wayang Kulit Kelantan and graffiti art in greater Kuala Lumpur: Similarities and differences. Annals of the Náprstek Museum 35: 3–22.

52.

Pardue

(2007) Hip hop as pedagogy: A look into ‘heaven’ and ‘soul’ in São Paulo, Brazil. Anthropological Quarterly 80(3), doi: 10.1353/anq.2007.0044.

53.

Pavoni

(2019) Speculating on (the) urban (of) art: (Un)siting street art in the age of neoliberal urbanisation. Horizontes Antropológicos 25(55), doi: 10.1590/s0104-71832019000300003.

54.

Pereira

(2018) Um rolê pela cidade de riscos: Leituras da piXação em São Paulo. São Carlos: EDUFscar.

55.

Phillips

(1996) Graffiti Definition: The Dictionary of Art. London: Macmillan Publishers – Grove’s Dictionaries Inc. URL (consulted 19 March 2021): https://www.graffiti.org/faq/graf.def.html, retrieved 19/03/2021

56.

Powers

(1999) The Art of Getting Over: Graffiti at the Millennium. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

57.

Raposo

(2019) The reinvention of a peripheral neighbourhood in Lisbon: Reflections on urban art, ethnography and public policy. In: Ferro

Poveda

(eds) Arts and Ethnography in a Contemporary World: From Learning to Social Participation. London: Tufnell Press, pp. 156–176.

58.

Ross

(2016) Sorting it all out. In: Ross

(ed.) Routledge Handbook of Graffiti and Street Art. London: Routledge, pp. 1–10.

59.

Ross

Lennon

Kramer

(2020) Moving beyond Banksy and Fairey: Interrogating the cooptation and commodification of modern graffiti and street art. Visual Inquiry 9(1–2): 5–23, doi: https://doi.org/10.1386/vi_00007_2

60.

Schacter

(2013) The World Atlas of Street Art and Graffiti. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

61.

Schacter

(2014) The ugly truth: Street art, graffiti and the creative city. Art & the Public Sphere 3(2), doi: 10.1386/aps.3.2.161_1.

62.

Shapiro

(2019) Artification as process. Cultural Sociology 13(3), doi: 10.1177/1749975519854955.

63.

Shapiro

Heinich

(2012) When is artification? Contemporary Aesthetics 4.

64.

Snyder

(2009) Graffiti Lives: Beyond the Tag in New York’s Urban Underground. New York: New York University Press.

65.

Snyder

(2016) Graffiti and the subculture career. In: Ross

(ed.) Routledge Handbook of Graffiti and Street Art. London: Routledge, pp. 204–213.

66.

Snyder

(2018) Deviance as career opportunity. In: Brown

Sefiha

(eds) Routledge Handbook on Deviance. London: Routledge, pp. 130–137.

67.

Stewart

(1989) Graffiti Kings: New York City Mass Transit Art of the 1970s. New York: Melcher Media.

68.

Szacher

(ed.) (2012) Estética marginal, vol. #2. São Paulo: Zupi Design.

69.

Thompson

(2009) American Graffiti. New York: Parkstone International.

70.

Thornton

(1997) General introduction. In: Gelder

Thornton

(eds) The Subcultures Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 1–7.

71.

Threadgold

(2018) Creativity, precarity and illusio: DIY cultures and ‘choosing poverty’. Cultural Sociology 12(2), doi: 10.1177/1749975517722475.

72.

Valiengo

Mesquita

(dir.) (2013) Cidade cinza (documentary). Brazil: Espaco Filmes.

73.

Waclawek

(2011) Graffiti and Street Art. London: Thames and Hudson.

74.

Wainer

Oliveira

(dir.) (2009) Pixo (documentary). Brazil: Sindicato Paralelo.

75.

Wells

(2016) Graffiti, street art, and the evolution of the art market. In: Ross

(ed.) Routledge Handbook of Graffiti and Street Art. London: Routledge, pp. 464–474.

76.

Young

(2014) Street Art, Public City. London: Routledge.