Another attempt to explore the transient nature of post-graffiti through the history of a term
´The term post-graffiti has a history which seems to be more than long enough to manifest a stable and convenient meaning. However, from 1983 post-graffiti was proclaimed as a completely new art movement several times, which caused confusion and misunderstandings. This essay aims to explore the reasons why the meaning of post-graffiti was so shapeshifting over the time through the analysis of particular stages of its life cycle dated in New York 1980’s and Paris 2000s and how the differences in its meaning between these specific phases affected the modern perception of the term. It appeared to be that the main reason of the transient nature of post-graffiti is in the lack of attention to stylistic features. The artists representing the movement, declared as post-graffiti, were very divergent stylistically. Their artistic practices were not coherent as a whole, there was no aesthetic commitment. Consequently, it is hard to extract the essential features which could represent the movement. Through historical context this writing introduces the idea of letter construct which could be used in order to distinguish the movement stylistically.