Every morning, if it is not raining, I walk over a hill and through a parking lot to get to class. There are stone blocks at the foot of the hill just before the parking lot. On one of the blocks, in faded blue paint, is what looks like a word with embellished letters. It does not impact the space in a positive way and must go.
It promotes crime in York University. The parking lots south of York University border the village and are secluded do to low visibility from the cars in the lots and surrounding hills and trees. This area is not monitored and would be a prime location for mischief. The graffiti changes the space reinforcing the idea that crime is a very relevant concern for students at York. Walking home alone through the parking lot and an unlit pathway is bad enough. Knowing that cryptic messages are written around the area adds to the unsettling ambiance. Removing this graffiti, and graffiti around campus, would be a step in the right direction for York cleaning up it's image as an unsafe campus.
It does not make the neighborhood communal, which is what the goal of street art should be. It is a private work targeted at a private audience. McAuliffe and Iveson argue that the idea of graffiti as private communication supports the effort to eradicate it. They continue saying "opponents of graffiti assert that it is a selfish, individualistic and ‘private’ appropriation of the public realm." This work fits all three categories. It creates more of divide between the public sphere of York and the areas around it and should be removed. York needs to strive to be integrated with its surroundings so it's street art should represent that. It's street art needs to be targeted at the public.
This private graffiti can be looked at as a type of ownership on the area. It's private communication speaking to a certain audience saying "this is mine." Mitchell argues that without order liberty is impossible and that order is geographic, centering on the control of the public sphere. For York to have order and for people to be comfortable, graffiti like this should be removed. It changes the space by making the people feel like outsiders. If people felt like a part of the community it would change the space by making York feel like a community. All graffiti that claims ownership should be removed to give the public space back to the people.
I never noticed this graffiti until this assignment but now that I know it is there it is has changed the space for me. It makes the area less safe, less communal and at it's core it is stripping the public from public space. I vote for it to be destroyed.
This kind of graffiti reminds me a lot of the kind of graffiti that I see around my neighbourhood. I often see graffiti that consists of words that I can hardly read and usually don't know the meaning of. I associate this kind of grafffiti with negativity and I also think it should go. Similar to what you pointed out in your post about how its a type of ownership and private communication, I assume that most of the graffiti I see of this type in my area is related to gangs and claiming territory. This kind of graffiti leaves me with an uncomfortable feeling.
I understand the relationship this specific graffiti holds within the area of York University. Ideally, anything that is viewed as negative is usually associated with how the school is viewed. In this case since York University is commonly known for criminal activities, the graffiti can add more tension to how the space is viewed. We learned in class that York is trying to create a positive representation of the school in anyways possible. However, if York University has a negative representation of space, did that influence your argument towards why the graffiti should be removed? Do you also think that if all graffiti was removed from the school premises that it would change the representation of how the University is being represented?