Political Street Fashion

My critical bibliography dissects three comprehensions in which I have chosen to delve. Each of these have influenced me with their different analyses of my topic, of how politics has affected the outcomes and designs of street art, which intersect with each other in many ways. These graffiti designs show the opinions and beliefs of the artists and how politics and society affected their environments and outlooks, they often become iconic to certain areas.
The writing of Lewisohn argues how the street art stands for territorialism and bravado. Yet behind the pretty colours and designs lie a meaning, a story, an opinion to be heard. Graffiti and street art is so widely known and aggressive that it can be used to argue against anything i.e. ‘bombing’ and ‘tagging’, are just some examples of the violent names used to describe these markings. It stands against what is forced upon us in today’s society and what we have learnt to tolerate, which we should not. He states this method of speech “represents the voices of the unelected, fighting back against systems that are imposed on them.” Referring to the constructing and forward moving ways of the world, modernism as a whole is not welcomed openly by these artists. Although it is viewed as a more reserved way of protesting, he emphasises the intensity and forcefulness in the symbolism and meaning behind the style. The anti-modernist approach highlights the many failures, which occurred in society, due to the defective architecture and construction methods used for cheap bulk building. This resulted in creating zones of exclusion and isolation, in what is known as ‘The Concrete Jungle’. Therefore graffiti can be seen as criticism of the modernist ideologies. It was the only voice of the people at this time, the only composition of words that could be noticed. Essentially, rioting in an isolated room, displaying their expressions the only way they knew how.
Similar to the scenario of the previous extract,