Katia Grenaille Capstone Analysis Dr. Bednar

My research object is how people interact with the most popular street art, graffiti and

murals in Austin, Texas. I am particularly interested in the photo-taking and photo-sharing

experiences which occur at these mediums, and I have performed site analysis and visual content

analysis to examine this further. My methodology is also paired with a textual analysis of The

Tourist by Dean MacCannall and The Tourist Gaze by John Urry. This combination

demonstrates the act of consuming and producing tourist photography which is a result of the

constant circulation of photos in modern society and everyday life. That being said, the act of

photographing is socially intertwined with my sites of analysis treated as tourist attractions or

locations of “cultural capital” (Bednar); and the motivation is to establish “there-ness” so

individuals can prove the infamous, ‘I was there’ (you were not) and seize their photo-taking

opportunity.

The reason I have chosen my research object is I am interested in the implications of a

modern digitized relationship, and the influence of dominant cultural behaviors to repeat distinct

photo-taking and photo-sharing mannerisms. I decided the best sites of analysis to observe this

relationship were popular tourist attractions in Austin, Texas which serve as a backdrop for

taking photos.

My analysis is comprised of my own images which I captured at five different locations

of popular public art and murals: “I love you so much,” “HI, HOW ARE YOU,” “You’re My

Butter Half,” “Outdoor HOPE Gallery, and the graffiti, “NINJA STYLE KUNG FU GRIP”

crossing over Lady Bird Lake. Throughout the process of my capstone, I will continue to visit

1

these sites and take photographs, building a collection for analysis and examining patterns

amongst them. Unsurprisingly, my ability to capture an influx of individuals interacting with

these tourist attractions of public art depends on the day of the week (weekend or weekday) and

the weather. This is something I have already noticed while building my collection of

photographs at these sites of analysis, and I will continue to monitor it - as some of my current

photos are placeholders for upcoming demonstrative patterns. My current analysis is produced

through observation and site analysis in an ethnographic study of how people engage with spaces

of public art or graffiti through selfies, portraiture, etc., and a visual content analysis of the

photos I have taken at these sites.

ANALYSIS

The first day I set out to capture

photographs at the “I love you so much”

‘mural’ on South Congress, I was already

confronted by its cultural capital. South

Congress is a hub of tourism and the

‘Austinite’ consumer experience -- and it

was apparent as I passed a market selling T-Shirts with the mural’s popular phrase, it is an

important part of tourism and the Austin identity. This passing already signified a city aware of

itself as a tourist attraction (MacCannell 16), and this is where my site analysis began. The

market on South Congress was already taking part in a communal practice of tourism and

sharing the medium of cultural value: the “I love you so much” mural.

2

A sunny Sunday on South Congress Avenue guarantees tourists and individuals waiting

to take a picture with the “I love you so much” mural; and once I arrived at the mural, there was

plenty to be captured of their photo-taking experiences. On this good-weather day, I also

captured photographs at the “NINJA STYLE KUNG FU GRIP” graffiti on the railroad bridge

crossing Lady Bird Lake; and from this content, I have created two different primary

photo-groups: (1) Posing Rituals and Authenticity; (2) A Site Built with Anticipation and

Modern Totality. Each photo-group consists of six images and serves as a foundation for

place-holder images I will continue to capture at my other sites of analysis: “Hi, How Are You,”

“You’re My Butter Half,” and the “Outdoor HOPE Gallery.” These place-holder images were

captured on a cloudy weekday, therefore, there was not an influx of individuals at these

locations. However, I have paired these images with others taken at the “I love you so much”

mural and the “NINJA STYLE KUNG FU GRIP” graffiti to create another primary photo-group:

(3) Backdropping.

For the purpose of my analysis, I made the decision to call the photo-group images,

“Scene 1, 2, 3, etc.” for the fact that they are capturing a communicative practice between the

medium and the individual - modeling distinct mannerisms of being photographed,

photographing, and the influence to use a dominant cultural backdrop.

(1) - Posing Rituals and Authenticity

Posing rituals are a process or series of actions symbolically performed to create and

participate in photographs. “Snapshot Semiotics” by Dr. Bob Bednar uses this concept to explore

how these rituals take part in a “communal effort to claim a personal stake in the general culture

3

of place” (Bednar). Justifying this statement, the “I love you so much” mural is a prime example

of a production and consumption context for photo-taking and photo-sharing in Austin, Texas. In

these photographs, there is social editing and cultural editing occurring where the public art is

functioning communicatively and aesthetically (Moss 377). Therefore, we must ask ourselves an

important question: for whom are these images designed? In this photo-group, all of the

individuals are participating in posing rituals while legitimizing the site as an attraction for

taking pictures in Scenes 1-6. And upon further review, we might be able to answer the previous

question.

Scene 1: Scene 2:

4

Scene 3: Scene 4:

Scene 5: Scene 6:

Scenes 1-6 all feature people distinctly posing, using known gestures, and uniformity to

create the “ideal” image. Scene 1: a woman places her hand on her hip, smiling; Scene 2: a

couple embraces with a kiss on the cheek; Scene 3: friends squeeze together in similar outfits,

showing off their Amy’s Ice Cream from across the street; Scene 4: friends embrace smiling

under the mural; Scene 5: a bachelorette party crouches in front of the mural and poses for a

photo; Scene 6: friends lean back against the mural, smiling and preparing to be photographed.

5

Interconnected with posing rituals is the display of interpersonal relationships and an attempt to

authenticate it in a photograph. By taking these pictures, meaning is organized in the production

of the photo to replicate a collective “there-ness” - using the “I love you so much” mural as a

backdrop for their social and subjective identities (Bednar -- “there-ness”).

Scenes 1-6 show a pattern in posing rituals which suggest individuals are predisposed to

how to take photos and how to be photographed. The Tourist Gaze by John Urry states:

“Photographs are the outcome of an active signifying practice in which those taking the photo

select, structure, and shape what is going to be taken...there is an attempt to construct idealized

images which beautify the object being photographed” (Urry 127). In Scenes 1-6, I intentionally

capture the person taking the photograph -, and how they frame the mural and its subjects is

cohesive in posing mannerisms and content for all of the scenes. This is a cultural reproduction

and participation influenced by how sightseeing itself is a ritual performed collectively

(MacCannell 13). That being said, there is a touristic integration of society in these photographs

where photo-taking is performed and uses the authenticity of interpersonal relationships to

execute it. For this reason, these constructed, idealized images are consumed and produced in

modern society to shape everyday experiences.

The Tourist by Dean MacCannell describes man and his productions at tourist attractions

stating, “the commodity of delivering experiences in quality and quantity” (MacCannell 23).

Scenes 1-6 demonstrate this commodity in both quality and quantity behind the photo-taking and

photo-sharing processes. Individuals at my sites of analysis are attempting to capture the

“perfect” photo and they do so by taking multiple pictures. Therefore, “the actual act of

communion between the tourist and attraction is less important than the image or the idea of

6

society that the collective act generates” (14). The image then becomes a means for

understanding the development of a certain type of mindset - where individuals and especially

tourists prioritize photo-taking to demonstrate “there-ness” so they can prove their attendance at

social attractions and on social media platforms. Overall, the posing rituals of subjects in

photo-group 1 suggest their intention is to locate themselves at the mural and share it with others.

Scenes 1-6 stood out to me as photographs to capture because they are all perpetuating a

human-object relationship. However, in these instances, the people and the mural are mutually

benefiting objects in the same photo-taking environment. The mural is serving as a backdrop for

humans to enact their posing rituals, and this is clearly demonstrated by all of the scenes. Posing

rituals as a form of performativity argue these individuals have been predisposed to

photographing behaviors or mannerisms that are culturally dominant and accepted. For this

reason, such behaviors and mannerisms are being repeated in Scenes 1-6. This is also a useful

transition for analyzing the second photo-group: A Site Built with Anticipation and Modern

Totality, because people feel obligated to visually share and commemorate their locative

participation, and they do so because it has been done before them.

(2) - A Site Built with Anticipation and Modern Totality

The second photo-group shows a demand to create a pixelated memory within these

public spaces - a dominating experience and social patterning to take photos at tourist attractions.

Dr. Bob Bednar’s Snapshot Semiotics emphasizes: “the dominant ways of inhabiting city

landscapes involve attractions which everyone is drawn to by popular visual culture...and we can

assume that all tourists have pre-consumed at least some images of the places they are visiting”

7

(Bednar). We can assume individuals in Scenes 7-12 have pre-consumed images of these public

spaces because not only is there a line for photo-taking in Scenes 7 and 8, but Scenes 9-12

present a comfortable mediation between being there and taking a picture. There is an explicit

anticipation and search for the meaning of modern social life in this photo-group, and it is

directed by the tourist gaze formatted into an everyday interaction.

Scene 7: Scene 8:

Scene 9: Scene 10:

8

Scene 11: Scene 12:

At the “I love you so much” mural in Austin, Texas, it is rare there is not a line to take

photos. This is pictured in Scenes 7 and 8 at 5pm on a Sunday, and other times the line is even

longer. John Urry’s The Tourist Gaze argues “places are chosen to be gazed upon because there

is anticipation...and such anticipation is constructed and sustained through a variety of

non-tourist practices’” (Urry 3). Individuals in Scenes 7-12 are engaging with the mural and

graffiti as a result of non-tourist practices created by popular culture and how gaze is exercised

upon a backdrop. They are inserting themselves into the space to have the opportunity to take a

photograph, and their post-anticipated experience is outside the realm of these photos. Place

distinctively accounts for the meaningful experience given to a site; and it is important to

question how to achieve ‘novel, meaningful, and connected forms of expression’ as it pertains to

how individuals interact with street art, murals, or graffiti (Visconti 512, Borghini 114).

Scenes 7-12 could be the result of planned or unplanned interactions with the sites,

however, there is reason to believe groups of people gather to construct modern totalities, but

also to differentiate themselves somehow (MacCannell 13). People gather at the same locations

9

of popular visual culture to - hegemonically - participate with everyone else, but to set

themselves apart by taking a personalized photograph. The Tourist’s Dean MacCannell believes

the “differentiations of the modern world have the same structure as tourist attractions: elements

dislodged from their original natural, historical and cultural contexts to fit together with other

such displaced or modernized things and people” (MacCannell 13). The scenes of this second

photo-group normalize modernity and the touristic integration of society to ‘resemble a catalogue

of displaced forms’ (13). Fragments of modernity are incorporated into photo-taking to create a

unified experience, and part of this experience is the anticipation to replicate it on your own.

Scenes 9-12 are everyday interactions taking place in a populist aesthetic and espousing a

vision of space reappropriated as place (Borghini 117). In Scene 9, we see people gathering at

the bridge - a popular overlook of the Downtown Austin skyline and the “NINJA STYLE KUNG

FU GRIP” graffiti, a trademark tourist attraction. In Scene 10, we see a man walking his dog, a

man riding his bike, and a couple posing in the

background for a photo. While I observed people

interacting with the site, I also saw very intentional acts

and anticipation to photograph like in Scene 11 - where

the man has professional camera equipment and

proceeded to take pictures for fifteen minutes; and in

Scene 12, a normalized, digitized, and modern

experience with the site of public art: people on their

phones trying to capture and share where they are. That

being said, there are many types of interactions people

10

intend to achieve at these murals and sites of graffiti or art, however, they are subjectively

shaped by how people use them as a backdrop and even resource for photo-sharing on social

media platforms.

(3) - Backdropping

My third photo-group contains other images acting as placeholders for those to come.

Scenes 13-18 include all of my sites of analysis: “I love you so much,” “HI, HOW ARE YOU,”

“You’re My Butter Half,” “Outdoor HOPE Gallery, and “NINJA STYLE KUNG FU GRIP.”

The significance of Scenes 13-18 are how they are all serving as backdrops asking to be

photographed with; their mere existence is a suggestion to photograph them or be photographed

with them. For example, in Scene 14, we see a couple sitting on the bench overlooking the

“NINJA STYLE KUNG FU GRIP” graffiti, and by performing visual content analysis they are

framed to be participating in a certain communicative practice with the backdrop. Emotions

could be evoked from the image, possible conversations, etc., nevertheless, the image suggests

the theme of sightseeing: seeing and being seen.

Scene 13: (Via Do512) Scene 14:

11

Scene 15: Scene 16:

Scene 17: Scene 18:

John Urry reminds us in The Tourist Gaze: “To photograph is in some way to appropriate

the object being photographed...A power/knowledge relationship,” and I myself am participating

in this relationship by performing an ethnographic study photographing both subjects and their

backdrops. Scenes 13-18 are an example of transcribing reality in photographs, and Scene 15

supports this outcome with a plaque stating: “Use this stand for the perfect photo of your Butter

Half…#BUTTERHALF.”

12

There are explicit intentions that this mural was created to be a backdrop for photo-taking and in

doing so, the mural continues to argue its desire to be photographed and shared - as suggested by

the ‘hashtag’. Directly stating the intentions of the mural are to be photographed with, supports

the power/knowledge relationship; and there is pressure to create a human-object relationship by

taking pictures with the mural.

Scene 16 also supports this notion of a need to be photographed and part of the human

experience; and although the “Outdoor HOPE Gallery” in Scene 17 is being torn down for

condos, it continues to do this too. Currently, an interesting characteristic of the “Outdoor HOPE

Gallery” is the paradox of keeping people out, but still bringing people in with its presence.

While I was photographing this attraction, I saw two tourists drive up and try to take pictures of

it within ten minutes. Modernity can turn anything into a photographic experience and enable

anyone to photograph thus, there is a longevity in backdrops that create meaningful and creative

tensions with graffiti or street art. In Scene 18, the sign declares: “Graffiti without permission is

a crime.”

13

Ironically, this was one of the only locations in Austin where graffiti was welcomed and

endorsed as part of the ‘gallery,’ asking for people to participate and create their own art. It is

only now that such graffiti would be acting without permission; however, circulating photos of

this public space is one that does not require permission, and ultimately it will share the history

of this space forever.

Tourists capture images to demonstrate that they have really been there by showing their

version of the images they took (Urry 129); and I find the duality of photo-sharing and

photo-taking to be powerful pixelated evidence. Not only do these tourist attractions showcase

themed experiences, they praise people for interacting with them and they are subjectively

dependent upon the individual. More likely than not, the images taken at my sites of analysis are

shared on social media, and this is possibly the reason people are photographing them in the first

place. There is a human-object relationship that forms from photo-taking and photo-sharing

experiences - and by examining these three different photo-groups, we can identify the social

implications created by a focus on taking photos and sharing them with the intent to project

there-ness.

14

Katia Grenaille Capstone Analysis Dr. Bednar

Works Cited

Allmark, Panizza. “Sublime Spaces.” Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, vol. 23, no. 3, June 2009, pp. 383–388.

Anton, Corey. “Media Ecological Orientations to Philosophy and Philosophical Problems.”

Review of Communication, vol. 17, no. 4, Oct. 2017, pp. 224–239. Barasch, Alixandra, et al. “How the Intention to Share Can Undermine Enjoyment: Photo-Taking

Goals and Evaluation of Experiences.” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 44, no. 6, Apr. 2018, pp. 1220–1237.

Bednar, Bob. “Snapshot Semiotics Project Overview: Doing Cultural Studies of Snapshot Photography in the Contemporary American West.”

Benedek, István. “Instagram as a Tool for Destination Branding - Case Study on the Major Cities

of Romania.” Journal of Media Research, vol. 11, no. 2, July 2018, pp. 43–53.

Borghini, Stefania, et al. “Symbiotic Postures of Commercial Advertising and Street Art.”Journal of Advertising, vol. 39, no. 3, Fall 2010, pp. 113–126.

Clüver, Claus. “On Modern Graffiti and Street Murals Metareferential Aspects of Writings and

Paintings on Walls.” Studies in Intermediality, no. 5, Jan. 2011, pp. 279–303. Crinnion, Danielle. “Get Your Own Street Cred: An Argument for Trademark Protection for

Street Art.” Boston College Law Review, vol. 58, no. 1, Jan. 2017, pp. 257–285. Evans, Leighton. “The Social Capital of Locative Social Media.” Locative Social Media, 2015.

pp. 117-138. Isaac, Joseph. “Pics or It Didn’t Happen: The Artwork Formerly Known as Heritage in Google

Street Art.” Convergence: The Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, vol. 25, no. 3, June 2019, pp. 374–392.

Lapsansky, Charlotte. “Community on the Walls: How Public Murals Can Affect Intergroup

Relations in a Shared Neighborhood.” Conference Papers -- International

15

Communication Association, 2008. pp. 1. Light, Elinor. “Aesthetic Ruptures: Viewing Graffiti as the Emplaced Vernacular.”

Communication & Critical/Cultural Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, June 2018, pp. 179–195. Lombard, Kara-Jane. “From Subways to Product Labels: The Commercial Incorporation of Hip

Hop Graffiti.” Visual Communication Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 2, Apr. 2013, pp. 91–103. MacCannell, Dean. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. University Of California,

2013. Moss, KristinLee. “Cultural Representation in Philadelphia Murals: Images of Resistance and

Sites of Identity Negotiation.” Western Journal of Communication, vol. 74, no. 4, July 2010, pp. 372–395.

Murray, Derek Conrad. “Selfie Consumerism in a Narcissistic Age.” Consumption, Markets & Culture, vol. 23, no. 1, Feb. 2020, pp. 21–43.

Nardini, Gia, et al. “How and When Taking Pictures Undermines the Enjoyment of Experiences.” Psychology & Marketing, vol. 36, no. 5, May 2019, pp. 520–529.

Philipps, Axel, et al. “The Representation of Street Art on Flickr. Studying Reception with Visual

Content Analysis.” Visual Studies, vol. 32, no. 4, Dec. 2017, pp. 382–393. Pink, Sarah, and Larissa Hjorth. “Emplaced Cartographies: Reconceptualising Camera Phone

Practices in an Age of Locative Media.” Media International Australia (8/1/07-Current), no. 145, Nov. 2012, pp. 145–155.

Sălcudean, Ileana Nicoleta. “Art and Vandalism. CrossBreeding of Street Art (Re)Interpretation

of Street Art from a Sociological, Aesthetical and Interactivity Perspective.” Journal of Media Research, vol. 5, no. 1, Mar. 2012, pp. 45–60.

Trubina, Elena. “Street Art in Non-Capital Urban Centres: Between Exploiting Commercial

Appeal and Expressing Social Concerns.” Cultural Studies, vol. 32, no. 5, Sept. 2018, pp. 676–703.

Urry, John. The Tourist Gaze. Sage Publications UK, 2011.

16

Visconti, Luca M., et al. “Street Art, Sweet Art? Reclaiming the ‘Public’ in Public Place.” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 37, no. 3, Oct. 2010, pp. 511–529.

17