At least three times a week I enter the Accolade West building, and go to the second or third floor to reach class. Normally, I use the less travelled stairwell to get to class, since it is less crowded and faster to get to class. I noticed that there is significantly more graffiti on the wall compared to the other stairwell that is in the building. Some of what is written is hard to see due to the lighting and the colour used, but in pink it says “good bye” and “let’s be friendz”, and the other stuff that is written is in a different colour and is much easier to see (Figure 1). I believe that the graffiti should be removed since it does not enhance the space. The graffiti is clearly low effort, and does not look pleasant. Perhaps if there was more effort put in to the graffiti, then I would think it should stay since more effort typically means it would look a lot better, more artistic, and possibly convey a better message for other people that walk by it every day.

The space does not embody a specific gender since it is just a stairwell. Although, I believe the graffiti makes the space slightly more feminine due to the colour pink. The colour pink is normally associated with femininity, which leads me to believe that a female wrote part of the graffiti. Then perhaps a male responded in a different colour, which is seen as the black writing on the wall. Even though there are other words that are written in different colours, the bright pink is the first thing that catches my eye whenever I am taking the stairs to get to class. I feel like the person that wrote in pink used the specific colour to grab the attention of other people, which helps convey the message to more people.

The graffiti written on the wall does not look like art in any way at all. There is no creativity involved in what is written, since it is just clearly printed text. Possibly, if more effort was put into the graffiti, then it could be considered art in my opinion. McAuliffe and Iveson argues that “breaking the codes of order we invite further disorder to occur” (McAuliffe and Iveson, 2011, pg 130) I feel like the longer the low quality graffiti stays up, the more inviting it is for other vandalism to be placed on the wall. This is evident in what is seen on the wall since it is clear that more people are adding on to what was initially placed, seen through the different colours and hand writing that is used. I feel that eventually the wall could be filled up with random writings if the initial graffiti is not removed in the early stages. Removing it would avoid the possibility of more graffiti because the idea of writing on a clean wall is unsettling. But if there is lots of vandalism that is already on the wall, then it would not feel as immoral because it would seem as if it is allowed to write on the wall.

Furthermore, I feel that the space does not change as much with the graffiti. I thought it was interesting what McAuliffe and Iveson said in the article about the audiences of graffiti: “the question of whether graffiti is ‘public’ or ‘private’ is really a matter of the different audiences for whom graffiti is written and to whom it is accessible, and how these audiences are imagined and experienced” (McAuliffe and Iveson, 2011, pg 135). The space feels slightly more public because the graffiti is clearly legible, and anyone is able to respond to a simple “hello!” or “let’s be friendz”. I believe that it was the person’s intention for people to be able to easily respond to what is written, or be able to add their own message on the wall, which people are clearly doing, and I believe that this makes the space feels more public. Although, I also think the graffiti can be considered as private in terms of communicating. The graffiti can be considered as a private communication between people who actually like or enjoy writing on walls, and this is shown through other people also writing on the wall beside the initial part of the graffiti. The main problem with this is how the private communication is conveyed. If some people want to communicate further with the graffiti, then they would have to write on the wall, which creates a further mess of vandalism. It would make sense to remove the graffiti in the early stages, or else people will start adding more to what is already on the wall, and perhaps make it even harder to remove in the future.

In addition, I believe that the graffiti in the stairwell does not make the space safe or unsafe during the day, but I feel that it makes the space slightly unsafe at night. Even though any stairwell would feel unsafe at night, I believe that the graffiti would make it slightly more unsafe. Since the graffiti is inviting for more people to add on, I feel that more people will begin to vandalize the walls primarily at night, and this could possibly lead to more criminal activity from the person that is adding on to the graffiti. This make the space of the stairwell an unsafe area at night, which can easily be avoided if the graffiti is removed from the walls in the stairwell.

I feel that the graffiti in the stairwell of the Accolade West building  is mainly considered as vandalism instead of art. Mainly because of the amount of effort put in the graffiti, and how it is inviting more people to vandalize the walls of the building. The graffiti should be removed as soon as possible, so that more people do not continue to write on the walls of the stairwell, which would make the space a much safer environment.

 

References

McAuliffe, C, & Iverson, K. (2011). Art and Crime (and Other Things Besides … ): Conceptualising Graffiti in the City: Conceptualising Graffiti in the City. Geography Compass 5(3): 128–143.