Urban space as an arena of social conflicts and identity disputes, brings with it graffiti as one
of the art expressions that emerge as voices in polyphonic cities. Among these voices, the
indigenous theme, which due to colonizing discourses, when they are not erased by silencing,
is usually propagated in a pejorative manner, matching with stigmas and stereotypes. The
trajectory of the image exposure of the original peoples is marked by complexities that
contribute significantly to the way they perceive and are perceived. The object of this study is
to analyze the indigenous image present in the graffiti of two artists, Cranio and Raiz,
respectively. Understand, above all, how they are exposed to the free visual enjoyment of
individuals in cities, as well as the possible consequences of these interactions. From a cross
between the knowledge of Communication and Anthropology, assumptions and methods of
image analysis are raised as a narrative support capable of surpassing its linguistic
enunciability thus forging identities. From the communication, I bring the French Discourse
Analysis, based on Courtine (2003) intericonicity, the anthropology of art, based on what Gell
(2018), Lagrou (2007) and Demarchi (2013) put, the concepts of agency , traps and chimeras.
These are concepts that advocate the existence of the social action of the work of art as a
distributed collective phenomenon. The comparative analysis of the artists pointed to
coincidences in the learning path and antagonisms in the way they present the indigenous
image in their works. On the one hand, they contribute to the deconstruction of oppressive
discourses; on the other, they run the risk of reinforcing such discourses, given the polysemy
of interpretations that the image is capable of causing. In the making of this work, Cranio
seeks strategies of mirroring and counterintuitiveness from the hybrid representation of his
character, a fact that inserts the indigenous as a member of society. Root seeks indigenous
representation by marking the differences. Which favors the idea of ethnic multiplicity. In
both cases, they bring the discussion about the place of the indigenous subject in society,
contradicting the discourse of ideological erasure. And that in itself is already significant.
|
