I have passed by this graffiti a couple times while driving around in Brampton. Sprayed onto the side of a trailer possibly what looks like a phrase, is crammed up into a corner surrounded by bushes. Around it are residential areas but kind of secluded from everything around it. I never quite noticed this graffiti until I had to look for one, implying that it is not something that usually catches peoples eyes. I believe that this graffiti should go because it does not have much of an impact on the space and it does not really serve much of a purpose nor do people take in the presence of it from afar.

I find this graffiti is located in a space where no one will acknowledge it because it does not seem like a place where people go to hang out, it is more of a space where people walk by to get to the places that they need to go. I feel as though this piece is not really considered art and it is not bold enough for it to catch people’s attention. As I was observing the space, people were just walking past it completely disregarding the piece and minding their own business. People only paid attention to it because I was taking pictures and probably wondering why I was there and what I was doing. But as I was taking pictures I noticed that someone’s stuff was underneath the trailer, so I am assuming a person might have been living underneath it. I also took into account that the graffiti is kind of hidden behind bushes and no one really goes in that area because it seemed pretty sketchy. So I feel that if this graffiti were to be taken away people would only notice that the big trailer is gone but wouldn’t quite remember or think about the graffiti on it.

This graffiti is not really counted as art, the way I see it, it is more of vandalism because it is on something it is not supposed to be on, which is classified as a crime. I think that the graffiti genders the space to a male because as stated in class discussions, males are more likely to commit rebellious acts than women are (Class, October 28 2015). This is because women are more reserved, conform and obey the rules while males tend to break the law quite more often. This piece of graffiti reflects a certain image that goes with graffiti artists and in the reading by McAuliffe and Iveson, they say that there is a certain look that goes with graffiti crimes; hoodies and sneakers are common among young people, which makes them easier targets (McAuliffe & Iveson, 128). I could see how this graffiti and space kind of gives the vibe of hoodies and sneakers, and young rebellious males. Society has made a general stereotype towards graffiti one of them being hoodies and sneakers and young rebellious youth, also people have this idea that graffiti is always associated with criminality and anti-social behavior. I feel as if the artist of the graffiti may have an introverted personality, and anti-social behavior because the location of the graffiti was pretty isolated and at the back in the corner. But I feel that it should go because it has no purpose in the space, if anything it is just vandalism on a trailer.

This space itself the way I see it is kind of a private and public space. Private space in the sense that it is in the corner behind bushes and there is not much around besides the residential areas that are behind it. It is public in the sense that it is out there in the open and the trailer where the graffiti is drawn on is quite big. With the graffiti written on it, I think that it makes something public seem quite private because someone drew on it either to send a message to someone or using it as a space to have freedom of expression. Graffiti as stated in the McAuliffe and Iveson reading, is seen as a private language or a type of communication, the graffiti is written on something public but the piece makes it private at the same time (McAuliffe & Iveson, 133). Graffiti is not something a lot of people can understand, so maybe this message was directed to someone specific because there are three different colors painted onto it. So maybe these artists were replying back to each other or something. Or it could have been one or more people trying to send messages to the public.

Overall, I believe that this graffiti should go because although it does not affect anyone, it also serves no purpose and makes the space seem sketchier with it there. People did not really acknowledge its presence to start with and no one appreciated it so I feel that if the artists’ purpose was to catch people’s attention maybe he or she should choose a space where people will notice it. This graffiti should go because it is also a crime for vandalizing on something they are not supposed to, so this art of theirs is a crime. In contrast to my opinion I feel that if the graffiti were to stay it is not  affecting anyone or anything in its surrounding. As I said before people do not really pay attention to it since it is in the corner surrounded by bushes and it is not in a location that many people will acknowledge its presence.  But in the end, my opinion is that this graffiti should go and i would personally not classify it as art because it is a crime of vandalism. In addition to its crime and vandalism, it does not serve any purpose whatsoever to the space and to the people around it.

 

 

References

Class Discussion

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.