I pass by this piece of graffiti every day on my bus ride home from Eglinton West Station.
Sprayed onto the side of a coffee shop, it sticks out against the image of wealth and affluence that the surrounding tree-lined streets of large detached homes, retirement housing, veterinary offices and law firms convey, that is, the image commonly associated with Forest Hill. Living there, I know that this image is not entirely reflective of those who move through the space. I believe that this graffiti should stay then because it challenges these impressions of the space. Though it does not convey a particular meaning to me, its presence speaks to the idea that not everyone fits in to the way a certain space is designed or arranged.
Thinking about spaces, we tend to characterize them in a way that does not accurately convey how they are truly lived and experienced. The neighbourhood of Forest Hill is almost universally depicted as a wealthy area. The Grid, a weekly magazine whose aim is to provide a ‘real’ depiction of Toronto, “by rejecting the glossy, doggedly aspirational vision of it you see in so many other locations” (“About,” n.d.) merely describes the area as that of the “nouveau riche”, good for “long walks through mansion-lined side streets and extended bike rides along the Kay Gardner Beltline Trail [and] the café-lined stretch of Spadina Road that cuts through Forest Hill Village” (“Forest Hill,” n.d.).
Yet several streets over from these mansions are community housing units. Between these two extremes are smaller houses and apartments, some new, and some more rundown. The images of the area that dominate public consciousness then do not depict the reality of the breadth of the publics that occupy this space.
Though I do not know who created this graffiti, to me, its juxtaposition with the sign for Timothy’s Coffee represents a public that does not conform to the imposed ordering of the space it occupies as scenic, wealthy, and as the luxurious commercial space for cafés. It represents a competing view of the space and unsettles the “settled visions of society,” as described by McAuliffe and Iveson (2011), creating spaces “where individuals and groups contest and negotiate their co-presence” (133). To remove this graffiti simply because it disrupts the desired ordering of a space would ignore how individuals and groups experience public space differently and would inhibit the understanding of public space as “[containing] multiple publics,” as proposed in the multi-public model of public space, where there is “a celebration of difference” (Iveson 2011, 189). To me, this celebration is particularly important in building community in a society characterized by diversity.
Some may argue for the removal of this graffiti because it conveys a private message which is not understood by or significant to most passersby (including myself). Yet removing it privileges the interests of one group over another (McAuliffe and Iveson 2011, 135). In doing so, we engage in a process of othering as we decide who to include and who to exclude from the image of a community, that is to say who has power and who is denied it, based on how they are represented in public spaces (Ruddick 1996, 10). Though its message is private, this graffiti actually makes the space more public by validating the presence of the multiple publics that occupy it.
The value of this graffiti for me is not aesthetic or in the particular message it seeks to convey. Instead, it comes from how its presence challenges the conventional ordering of a space. It is an important reminder of how different publics are often hidden and not represented in the dominant ordering of public space and public life.
About. Retrieved from http://www.thegridto.com/issues/99/
Forest Hill. Retrieved from http://www.thegridto.com/neighbourhoods/forest-hill/#sub=places&subValue=0
Iveson, K. (1998). Putting the Public back into Public Space. In J.J. Gieseking & W. Mangold (Eds.), The People, Place, and Space Reader (pp.187-190). New York: Routledge
McAuliffe, C. & Iveson, K. (2011). Art and Crime (and Other Things Besides…): Conceptualising Graffiti in the City. Geography Compass, 5(3), 128-43.
Ruddick, S. (1996). Constructing Differences in Public Spaces: Race, Class, and Gender as Interlocking Systems. In J.J. Gieseking & W. Mangold (Eds.), The People, Place, and Space Reader (pp.7-11). New York: Routledge
I don’t think that diversity should be represented by graffiti. Toronto economy is booming largely due to its real estate. Obviously media focuses on the wealthier pockets to induce business. No one investing in real estate wants community housing next to their million dollar homes. It seems as though wealthy people are being punished for being wealthy, when did it become a crime to be well off? If this graffiti artist wanted to represent the diversity, maybe instead of vandalizing the walls they could have reached out and helped their community. It definitely is an eyesore with an unclear message and I think it should be removed.
I support your argument of why the graffiti should stay because it challenges the ideologies of which individuals should occupy space.
It could possibly be that the coffee shop has grown to accept the work or they just do not care. However, can it be a good or bad thing if more individuals started to create their own graffiti in this area? And if so, how would this change the representation of the neighbourhood?