In the late 1980s DJs received their first news from the West and their first illegal recordings about new directions in music. Graffiti in Latvia began in 1985 along with the so-called first wave of hip-hop culture in Latvia, which was accompanied by a specific style of music (hip-hop and rap) and dance (break-dance etc), and a style of art – graffiti. However, this time was not yet the beginning of graffiti “art”, but is when the first slogans and notes were written on publicly accessible walls of buildings. At this time, graffiti artists identified themselves as members of a wider movement and the first attempts were made to make these “tags” conform to the requirements of graffiti art.
The law dictated that these kinds of unsanctioned drawings and writings could attract a jail sentence for malicious hooliganism (2–5 years), and expulsion from the Communist youth organisation. Until the beginning of the national awakening, graffiti artists were monitored by the State committee and Ministry for the Interior: if someone wrote something negative in relation to the Communist party, their punishment could range from a serious talking-to, to serious administrative sanctions.
The first creators of graffiti in the late 1980s worked with the same medium with which they do today – enamel spray paint, except the only spray paint available was our own Латвбытхим (1) brand. The available colour range was limited to five or six colours, which the artists themselves mixed and improved within the limits of their own imagination and possibilities. The ink from felt pens was also considered good for creating new shades, injected it into the can with the help of a syringe. The quality of the paint was dubious – the paint settled straight after shaking, and the added solvent remained.
However at this time, even though the conditions were not conducive to graffiti, there were many youths in Latvia who wished to oppose the Soviet order with the help of art or music.
In Latvia, this culture was developed in a small circle of like-minded people – by three friends who were united by more than just their common interests: Крыс, who was a school friend of Alexandroid Malysh, and Picasso, who later studied in the same educational establishment as Alexandroid Malysh. Крыс’s interest and passion for this art form was the most enduring, and he is currently considered to be the pioneer of graffiti in Latvia. “We were like friends – stewing in the same atmosphere. It was more interesting to work like this, and even escape from the militia together with others. That is why we created our first “panno” together and our favourite place in the 1980s was under the Maskavas Bridge.” (2)
The largest work from the late 1980s and early 1990s, preserved through photography and in people’s memories, was the painting in the tram tunnel in the Moscow suburb. Its theme could be interpreted as a warning of the closeness of death: a laughing rat with a background of cans of spray paint and a partially ruined city, and an image of Jesus with a reminder that time is slowly passing. The location for the work was chosen with the aim to reach a large audience. The first fragments of work were done in 1987, after that in 1989, and in 1994: the process of creation was periodically halted because of the militia, which appeared in the tunnel soon after the first part was painted, to make sure that further instalments would not follow. Although they were not allowed, these paintings decorated the walls of the tunnel for almost ten years. “During the creation of the work people would approach us from the street. On discovering that we weren’t gaining any personal profit, that we were spending our own money on the painting, they thought we were crazy,” remembers Крыс, and continues: “My dream is to be given the opportunity to start a graffiti gallery under the open sky. Here in Riga there is a large percentage of people who do not attend cultural events, don’t go to galleries, so I want to bring art to the street.”
In the early 1990s the influence of the first wave of hip-hop culture lessened across the USSR. An economic crisis followed the beginning of the breakdown of the USSR. The Латвбытхим factory also stopped manufacturing paint and other raw materials. Paint was difficult to find in Latvia, and it was not possible to buy it from outside the national territory.
Hip-hop culture became less active under this difficult economic situation and because of the lack of materials it was not possible for graffiti to revive until 1995. In the early 1990s graffiti enthusiasts had to work with paint brushes. Крыс remembers: “Paint was only available to fire fighters and fruit warehouses, for painting containers. I then had to trade it for vodka.”
At this time graffiti reached a new level. Until 1995 it had existed only as illegal, underground art, but as society recovered after the change in political system the first commercial works of graffiti appeared. The first wave of commissioned graffiti occurred in 1995, when a night club scene began to develop in Latvia, and recognised graffiti artists (from the first wave of hip-hop culture) began to design the interiors of clubs. Thanks to electronic, synthesised rave music, clubs began to display graffiti executed with glow-in-the-dark paint.
In the late 1990s graffiti became popular amongst youth: San-Sey (3), Saf, Prisk, Drozd, Jara, SerΩ, Fpa, Reña, Tank, Rony, Daniels, Kengur, Art, Simpsons (4), Miha, Serij, Stepans etc. Slon and Íura (also Shurez, Saßa) are the only two to stand out in terms of artistic quality. This was a two-person team, who worked with Крыс for some time, but due to a publicly-unknown conflict, a battle began between them, in which each accused the other of damaging their works.
The digital era was combined with graffiti art in the beginning of the 21st century: the internet in combination with other technologies, such as digital cameras, enhanced the durability of works of graffiti. Together with this international accessibility, graffiti has become humdrum. Quick and easy access to information also unavoidably creates adverse consequences, for example, the literal adoption of Western culture.
According to Section 185 of the Latvian Criminal Law, the intentional destruction or damage to property of another can attract a jail sentence of four years, or arrest, or a fine up to 60 times the minimal monthly wage. If the paintings display obvious disrespect to the surrounding community – they are lewd, rude, provocative etc, then they can be subjected to Section 231 regarding hooliganism, with a jail sentence of up to two years, or arrest, or community service, or a monetary fine of up to 50 times the minimal monthly wage. The owner who has had their property damaged also has the right to submit, through civil court, a request for the offender to compensate the material loss. The damage of a monument of cultural heritage attracts more serious sanctions. In reality, the punishment for graffiti is a fine up to 50 lats.
Until the beginning of the 21st century Latvian graffiti had a noticeable tendency to utilise images from traditional figurative art, but with the beginning of the new century, a rapid move towards traditional American graffiti occurred: that is, the name has become the primary subject for representation and along with this, the illegality is considered an obligatory part of graffiti. This aspect therefore theoretically also divides the graffiti subculture in two opposing camps – the ‘taggers’ (5) who practise traditional American graffiti and condemn any involvement in the legal sphere, and the artists who consider graffiti to be art and who tend to work also legally without objection – paying more attention to the finer detail. The most active maintainers of the classic American graffiti tradition are the TDV crew and Faro, Séni, Tasi, Ynk and others.
From its very conception, graffiti has been surrounded by debate about its classification – is it art or vandalism? Its aesthetic value has been examined by many. The most precise comment in defence of graffiti can be attributed to George Stowers: “Graffiti art cannot be disregarded simply because it is not presented in the conventional location and manner, i.e., framed and placed in a museum or gallery. The location of it on a wall or subway without permission only makes it unsolicited art.” (6)
1 Латвбытхим – The union of chemical products manufacturers of the Ministry of Industry of the Republic of Latvia (1970–1991). This was one of the biggest aerosol manufacturers in the USSR, as a branch of the pan-Union enterprise Союзбытхим .
2 Interview with Крыс 7 May 2006. Transcript in the author’s personal archive.
3 Also one of the founders of break-dance in Latvia.
4 The only ethnically Latvian participant.
5 The author has delineated this theoretical divide, based on mottoes of the artists themselves. One group wishes to be seen as artists, the other emphasises their strong connection to tagging. This principle is also reflected in the style of works.
6 Stowers G. C. Graffiti art: An Essay Concerning the Recognition of some forms as art. www.graffiti.org./faq/stowers.html