Figure 2: Crossing Sign
Figure 1: Map of Newtonbrook
I like taking the Finch Hydro Recreation Trail on my way back from Glendon campus. One evening, at the intersection between the trail and Grantbook street (see Figure 1), a sign caught my attention (see Figure 2). What appeared to be a simple reminder for automobiles of the crossing of pedestrians and cyclists turned out to be much more: it was the host of a anti-line 9 and tar sands graffiti (see Figure 3). This graffiti shapes the space into a truly diverse, safe and democratic space; it questions the appropriation of the public space by Enbridge without an open debate where actors are equal in nature. Indeed, it questions relations of power in the public space, challenges the physical order of the space and serves to open the public sphere.
Space and Power
Figure 3: Stop Line 9! TAR SANDS
The Line 9 graffiti challenges the relations of power in the space; it questions who belongs and has influence over public spaces, or as Mitchell (2003) calls it, 'who has the right to the city'. The dynamics of struggles for rights comes from the heterogeneous nature of public spaces (Mitchell, 2003). In the city of Toronto for instance, different groups seek to secure their 'right to urban life' (Lefebvre, 1996: 158, quoted in Mitchell, 2003: 193). Marxist philosopher Lefebvre sees the city as a piece of collective art. Everyday, each individual takes part of shaping the city, i.e., they exercise their right to the oeuvre, defined as the right to participate and appropriate the city – to make the most out of the space for the locals rather than to maximize the monetary potential of the space (Purcell, 2003: 578). The equal right to the oeuvre is constantly challenged by institutionalization of rights: instructions become entrenched in law and state violence to secure power and interests of some at the expense of the rest (McAuliffe, Cameron, and Iveson, 2011).
Clearly, the Line 9 graffiti is an attempt from an individual to take ownership of his/her right to the oeuvre. The graffiti is an expression of one's rights to the city, or as Lefebvre puts it, 'to urban life, to renewed centrality […] enabling the full and complete usage of... moments and places'(Lefebvre 1996 [1968]:179, quoted in Mitchell, 2003:193). Unfortunately, Enbridge's interests are secured by right to build the pipeline and the right to private property. The institutionalized power sides with Enbridge and shapes the process in which space is produced: it legitimizes Line 9's presence while criminalizing the graffiti (as seen on Figure 3, the graffiti has been washed out). Considering the graffiti as crime allows for certain groups to entrench their power and eventually, as Mol and Law warn, to 'purify' the public space in exclude and expel targeted unwanted people, such as anti-Line 9 activists (see McAuliffe, Cameron, and Iveson, 2011:141) .
Some could argue that tolerating the Line 9 graffiti could lead to increased crime rate drawing on from the 'broken windows' theory that states that a broken window on a building invites for further broken windows (see McAuliffe, Cameron, and Iveson, 2011: 130). In order to avoid perpetuation of crime in Newtonbrook neighbourhood, some could advocate for harsh penalties and criminal investigation. However, as many researches have failed to prove correlation between minor crimes such as graffiti and severe crimes (e.g. Harcourt 2001; Sampson and Raudenbush 1999; Taylor 2001, see McAuliffe et al. 2011), I assert that the Line 9 graffiti shall be and remain understood in sight of the lawfulness of the space. Line 9 graffiti is an appropriation of the city, an attempt to confute and change relations of power in the space, to reclaim the ownership of the city.
Space and Disorder
The graffiti contributes to making the space publicly safer: it exposes the dangerous transformations that Enbridge is doing in public spaces. The graffiti disrupts the hegemonic status quo towards Line 9 by creating a disorder in the physical environment. In fact, the graffiti goes against the cleanliness of the place that is associated with order in public spaces (McAuliffe, Cameron, and Iveson, 2011). Similarly, Wilson and Kelling (1982) have argued that the illegal graffiti transgresses the normative behaviour of the public space and invites for further social, cultural or political transgressions (refer to ibid.). Indeed, the Line 9 graffiti contrasts sharply with the middle-class and relatively ordered Newtonbrook neighbourhood. For Line 9, transgressions of normative behaviours could take form as further graffiti, protests or boycotts.
Some could argue that such graffiti could contribute to making the space less safe, that it would lead to negative disorder and loss of respect for communal property (Wilson and Kelling, 1982) and that it should only be tolerated on legal walls – that graffiti should be treated as art and be displaced in an appropriate location where artists can be appreciated and recognized for their talent (Halsey and Pederick,2010, see McAuliffe et al.,2011). However, the danger with relocating them to sites where they are publicly recognized and appreciated as simple visual enjoyment, i.e. consumeristic art is is to obey social, cultural and political power. More simply, graffiti derive meaning and power from their choice of location (McAuliffe, Cameron, and Iveson, 2011). For Austin, unpredictable location is at heart of graffiti and the illegal placement of art grants subtleties to a space within a 'pleasurable critique of the standing order' (Austin, 2010: 43 quoted in McAuliffe et al. ,2011: 133).
Figure 4: Enbridge's Pipeline Warning Sign by the Recreational Trail
In the case of the Line 9 graffiti, the choice of location is crucial in challenging the status quo. It raises a bigger question: which one is actually disrupting the physical environment the most, a graffiti or a pipeline? Which one is the most dangerous: a graffiti that creates disorder or a pipeline that endangers the health of people of the present and of the future? More importantly, the graffiti is clearly not of aesthetic purposes; it gives meaning to the space by being spatially standing in front of Enbridge's pipeline warning sign, as a permanent protester. In brief, the graffiti does not change the space into being messy or unwelcoming, it rather disrupts the order of the physical environment... to protect the space, i.e. the environment and the people.
Space and Democracy
A graffiti such as Line 9's enhances the democratic nature of public spaces; it recalls and takes a part of the public space to open up a debate and represent other interests (Mitchell, 2003: 194).
According to Mitchell's argument, the Line 9 graffiti contributes to shaping the space into becoming more democratic: it testifies of an activist's political representation. In other words, when a group has requirements, it will act them out publicly to make them known; the public act constitutes an act of political representation (ibid.). Nevertheless, I argue that the graffiti does much more than what Mitchell suggests, it serves to enhance the notion of political representation of public spaces; these spaces foster the public sphere as conceived by German philosopher Hannah Arendt i.e, a space for dialogue, for emergence of irreconcilable plurality and yet for emergence of a communal will. A space for underrepresented perspectives. Presently, the spectrum of political interest in the public sphere is threatened: control is increased over public sphere through surveillance, jurisprudence and harshness of the state (ibid) and the public sphere is replaced by 'privately controlled and mean of communication'(ibid) which diminishes the potential for confrontation of discourse and potential for communicative action (refer to Jurgen Harbermas' work). The Line 9 graffiti challenges these threats in many ways: it serves as a 'technology of expression' (Keith 2005,136, quoted in McAuliffe et al., 2011:133) to '[challenge] the very status of language, dialogue and discourse within the public sphere' making 'multiculture visible'.
Figure 5: Stop Line 9! TAR SANDS.
Let's be clear: the transgressive nature of the Line 9 graffiti does not make the space threatening or ugly in any way, it simply confronts the very own right of the pipeline to be in the space. The form of the graffiti is accessible to a very wide public as it was written legibly. The graffiti is a testimony of what McAuliffe et al. (2011) refers to as “ unsettling settled visions of society,” (133). It negotiates the 'co-presence' (ibid) of the pipeline and of activist groups in a space that was, another, a no-man's-land, and in a state of 'thrown-togetherness' (Amin 2010; Massey 2005, quoted in McAuliffe et al., 2011:133). The Line 9 graffiti is thus an actor in local and national politics and contributes positively to shaping the open, democratic and public nature of the Recreational Trail.
Take It or Leave It?
Some could argue that such graffiti should be removed from public spaces now that internet is a virtually accessible public sphere where groups can struggle for their coexistence. However, Michael Logan (2000) proved that it only allows for restricted public discourse and that it focused on definite concern or controversy (see Mitchell, 2003).
The Line 9 graffiti shall be seen simply as another form of performance that takes place in public spaces, as a form of communication that shall not be removed. To do so would contribute to the erosion of the public sphere of communication, to lessen the democratic nature of the space while contributing to making it less safe. Further more, it would disregard the heterogeneity in the public space. The multicultural and diverse socio-economic demographics of the Newtonbrook neighbourhood testify to this difference. The biggest danger would be to overlook the conceptualization of public spaces as 'a place where difference lives' (Mitchell, 2003: 193) and where all, despite their differences are allowed the right to the oeuvre.
In brief, Line 9 graffiti does much more than sending an anti-tar sands message: it questions the appropriation of public space by a powerful group without a democratic consultation with the public sphere. It is a proof of the struggle between groups for power in the public space. It reveals the extent of moral norms of the public space while nurturing coexistence between groups. All of these features granted by the graffiti contribute to shaping the space into a truly diverse, safe and democratic space.
Works Cited
Mitchell, Don. 2003. “To Go Again to HydePark" in The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. NY: Guilford Press. p. 13–42
McAuliffe, Cameron, and Kurt Iveson. 2011. “Art and Crime (and Other Things Besides … ): Conceptualising Graffiti in the City: Conceptualising Graffiti in the City.” Geography Compass 5(3): 128–43.
Purcell, Mark. "Citizenship and the Right to the Global City: Reimagining the Capitalist World Order." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 23.7.September (2003): 564-90. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.
Great post! You've mentioned some very interesting points, and have defended your argument excellently. I found it interesting how you argued that graffiti contributes to shaping a space into a diverse, safe and democratic space, when it is usually seen as doing the opposite. I think it's a great way of looking at graffiti from another angle, and is something that I hadn't really thought about.
You mentioned oeuvre, how everyone has the right to participate and appropriate in the city. I wonder though, if you feel that there should be any limits as to how an individual should exercise their right to oeuvre through graffiti? Does it ever become not okay to use graffiti to express oneself in a space? You also mentioned that graffiti is accessible to the wider public because it is written legibly. I wonder if graffiti that is not legible to the wider public should be viewed in the same way?
Thanks for sharing!
Thank you for your words @Sabeeha.
In terms of the oeuvre, it is a difficult question to answer as each graffiti has a different context that provides meaning, a different purpose, a different style, a different location, a different audience… In the concept of oeuvre, I see the inherent democratic nature of oeuvre. Thus, I argue that as long as the graffiti writes itself in harmony with democracy, i.e. that it is not hate speech or that it makes the space extremely private, I do not think it shall be removed. The right to oeuvre, as you point out in your question, can be exercised through other means. Yet, harsh intolerance towards graffiti would be to limit the spectrum of possibilities while creating a homogeneous discourse about the space.
For instance, the Line 9 graffiti reflects the change in the area around the graffiti: the change in mentality, the change in awareness as to what the pipeline actually does (or might do!), the change in local population, the change (or stagnation rather?) of power relations in the space and the change in people’s wants for public spaces.
Regarding the style of the graffiti, some could argue that illegible graffiti is a ‘private appropriation of the public’ (Glazer 1979;Sennett 1994). Nevertheless and similarly to what Warner (2000) argues, not everything in the public sphere can be understood by all (see McAuliffe et al., 2011). Academia is a good example of this fact: it is difficult to understand and requires previous training. Yet, academia also seeks to liberate minds and to allow individuals to challenge their thinking. I argue that graffiti acts similarly. Firstly, it proves that the public is not homogeneous, unlike the neoliberal argument goes (McAuliffe et al., 2011). Secondly, while it might reduce the publicness of a space if it is not written legibly, it shall be seen holistically and as a different presence in the space.