A post written by Kimberly Dumlao
You may not initially notice this work of graffiti – I sure didn’t from the numerous times I’ve passed by it getting off the bus to walk home. During the second week of October was when I first noticed this frog-like creature of royalty staring at me, speaking about love. It was seemed to be spray painted onto not one, but three sides of a grey electrical box at the corner of Danforth Road and Eglinton Avenue East, in Scarborough. The surroundings of this electrical box are plain and faded, with most of the colour coming from trees and the store signs of No Frills and Shoppers Drug Mart.
I believe that the graffiti should remain on the electrical box and continue to be part of this space. It allows you to question the space and, at least for me, show you a more positive way to look at life. I questioned myself about who could have done this and why, what it meant, and why it was purposely (or not purposely) put there. As mentioned, the surrounding space is ordinary, thus I don’t find the graffiti to be disrupting the space, but enhancing it. It pops out at you, making you notice it against the plain background of the No Frills parking lot. The piece is out of the ordinary, making the space more interesting – I have yet to see it in other areas of Toronto which could mean the piece is unique to this Scarborough area. It doesn’t create a feeling of intimidation or the feeling of being uncomfortable, like some works of graffiti can. I find it more welcoming and enjoy seeing it as I get off the bus and cross the street – it’s like a greeting as I walk home. Additionally, with this piece being present in the neighbourhood, I find that it reflects how the space is changing and how there are many different people occupying the space. Intended to be public or not, the graffiti shows you that people are coming and going through this intersection and by using graffiti, a more permanent mark is left by people who were in the space.
As the video shows, there is no other graffiti or tagging present on the electrical box. By occupying the majority of the space of the electrical box, it seems as though the artist is claiming ownership of the space, thus making my initial thought about it as a way to mark territory and ensure that their message is seen by all people.
Without explicit explanation from the artist, the idea of the piece being public or private depends on how the audience receives and responds to it. In the McAuliffe and Iveson article, they say “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.” Being a more visual form of graffiti as opposed to a written word or phrase, I find that this piece is up for more interpretation compared to other works. Everyone comes from various backgrounds and therefore, will have different opinions.
My second thought about this piece was that it is intended for the public and it is a message about love – to remind people they are loved, that they should love others, and that we should speak more with love rather than hate. In today’s society, we tend to talk about the things we dislike or things that went wrong in our lives as opposed to what we appreciate about them. As I days went on, another meaning of the piece came across my mind. Under the recent influence of pop singer Adele, I began to think this was a piece created for a significant other or an ex-significant other that lives around the area, thus making it more private. For the former, the message is that the artist loves them always and wants to remind them of this. For the latter, the message could be that the artist still has feelings for them and this drawing is something that carries meaning for the both of them. The original intention of this piece may be different as graffiti itself is considered as its own language. In this way, my interpretations may be completely different from what the artist intended and could have nothing to do with marking territory or spreading love. These were just the ways in which I reflected on this piece.
With this emotional aspect in mind, one may think the work was created by a female. In the way I have interpreted the piece, it has a lot to do with love, which is considered more feminine. However, I think that it was created by a male. In today’s society, we generally think of males as less expressive of their emotions and less vocal about the way they feel. They tend to put up a certain image to appear more masculine. For many people, graffiti is a form of expression, albeit a more risky one. In the article, McAuliffe and Iveson say that “Graffiti disrupts the aesthetic fabric of the urban environment, writing its own story across spaces not intended to act as a communication medium”. By using an electrical box as a canvas and spray paint, both non-traditional means to communicate, the artist can express his feelings and emotions in a way that he normally is unable to because of societal norms.
Would I go far enough and call this piece of graffiti art and not crime? Maybe. In the McAuliffe and Iveson article, they argue that graffiti is both art and crime, with each aspect being necessary to the other. By looking at this piece through a legal lens, without considering the artistry, you see that the artist did break the law as the piece was written without permission and violated public property. When we discussed this in class on October 28th, we spoke about art as being creative, different, comfortable, a form of expression, and something that enhances or makes you question a space (whether emotional or physical). This form of expression is one that can be interpreted in many different ways as each person who comes across this piece will come to a different conclusion. We came to realization that “art” is such a subjective term and that it becomes difficult to categorize what graffiti is art and what is not. This piece of graffiti has these artistic characteristics we spoke about in class. It is creative and different in the sense that I have never seen a frog-looking cartoon wearing a crown, with a speech bubble with a heart inside of it – I’m sure many people haven’t. It made me question my emotional space as I reflected a lot on the meaning and purpose of the piece, which is something I don’t often do with other things. Therefore, this piece is both art and crime. Without the criminal aspect of illegal placement, I wouldn’t have been able to see and come to appreciate the piece.
Just yesterday, I saw this same piece sprayed onto a 24hrs newspaper box located across the street from the electrical box. Seeing this strengthened my initial thought that the piece was a sign to mark territory. Is the artist communicating with others that this intersection “belongs” to them? Does this artist want the community to be aware of their presence, thus by spraying the creature onto various items in the neighbourhood will somehow make sure they’ll be noticed and thought about? Is he or she trying to spread a message to the community? Whatever the reasoning, it will be interesting to see where else the artist has placed this work of graffiti. I’ll definitely be on the look out!
It was very interesting to read your interpretation of this piece of graffiti without text. The fact that you have so many thoughts about this piece, shows how powerful an image can be. It is very good to read that this graffiti gives you a good feeling and has become a greeting. This is interesting because you also mention that is can be seen as the marking of a territory and we spoke in class that this can be intimidating. You say that you look forward to other pieces of this image, do you think that too many can also be intimidating? Or would it only be intimidating when the image is different/ less friendly?
I enjoyed how you interpreted the piece; is it to remind people of love or someone remarking about an ex. Also, when you were trying to pinpoint the gender of the artist and how females are more expressive then males. You stated that you'll be on the look out for more, Do you think that when you find more that they will express other emotions? Could the artist be distinguishing different emotions with different places?
Whenever I pass by this street, I always wondered the true meaning behind this graffiti piece. Given that it is presented more than once within the area, I agree with your statement about this piece marking territory. Although we may not know the real purpose behind it, the artist is making it clear to the local community that this "frog" is slowly taking over this area. As more begin to show up, do you think that he or she might change the message in the speech bubble from a heart to something else? If they change it to a flower or star or something negative, how would it alter your perceptions and feelings of this piece?
Additionally, it looks like the artist has no intentions of stopping any time soon. Do you think that the city should take any action before it goes out of control?
It is amazing how I did not even read your post until now and I notice how similar our thoughts are about this work. I actually enjoy that we were able to find the same piece, in different spaces, with slightly different contexts. It is amazing how one addition (or extraction) of the “bleh” changes the meaning a bit. I find ours to be very similar in the way that we interpreted it, but at the same time we both have pretty unique understands of our pieces. Yours speak a lot towards love (which I love), and I agree that it is a public service announcement for us to love one another and forces us to stop being so closed off for a second as we take in the work. I actually would like to know what you think about the question you raised within your blog about, “Is the artist communicating with others that this intersection “belongs” to them?” Given that we now know that the artist has probably tagged numerous areas in the city, can we then say that the artist is claiming Toronto in general as their own?
I really liked the piece you chose and the way you wrote about it. I agree with you that this piece should stay because it doesn't present a provocative message nor does it have anything inappropriate on it. This piece would kind of make someone smile and wonder why its there and what the meaning of it it. It is a really cute graffiti piece.
Thank you all for your comments on my post!
Response to irisb94:
Personally, I don’t usually find graffiti to be intimidating or something to be “afraid” of. I would say that the fact this piece is friendly-looking contributes to its less intimidating look. Thus, if I were to see more of these pieces, I wouldn’t be intimidated by them. I think would be more curious than anything. If I come across the same piece in a another area, I would think about the artist’s relationship to that space and if that relationship was different from the the space where I originally saw it.
I think that graffiti only really becomes intimidating when it negatively affects the space that it’s in and the people that come across it. If people fear going past a space or entering a space with graffiti, then the graffiti probably shouldn’t belong there.
Response to Rebecca Pinto:
I love the idea you brought up with your questions. However, I don’t think that there would be other pieces that express different emotions. With what I know about art (and that being not that much), artists have their own signatures and unique ways of doing things when it comes to their work. So in this case, this graffiti is the artist’s signature. I think they use it as an identifier, so that people relate the graffiti to that specific artist. But, I don’t shoot down the possibility of this happening. It would be really interesting to see different ones that express other emotions in different places. This would really show the kinds of relationships people have with spaces and how those spaces affect them.
Response to trancy95:
To answer your first question, like I mentioned in my response to Rebecca, I don’t think the artist would change the message in the speech bubble to something else, as it may be acting as a unique identifier representing the artist. However, as time goes on, the artist may decide to change the image in the bubble, after having experienced different events and developing as an individual, so I don’t think the idea is impossible.
In regards to your second question, I do believe that if the image changes to something else, my perceptions and feelings towards the piece would change. I am the kind of person to associate various emotions and events with different images. In addition, I think that different images evoke different feelings in a person. So, for example, if the image inside the speech bubble was a flower instead of a heart, I may think of it as a way that the artist is spreading a message of growth and being unique.
Lastly, I think the city would need to find a solution to better deal with the issue of graffiti as a whole. However, I don’t know how well the solution of providing artists with more spaces to do graffiti will help in the issue. What I do know is that by constantly putting the effort into erasing graffiti, I think will just encourage artists to find another place to do it. Even if formal regulations are established to combat graffiti, people will rebel against – it’s just part of the graffiti culture.
Response to susankai:
To answer the question that I raised in my post, I don’t necessarily think that the artist is trying to communicate that the intersection “belongs” to them. What I think they are trying to do is make their presence more dominant/known and bring awareness to that presence. They want others to know that they were there (and have the possibility of returning) but I don’t think they are claiming ownership of the space.
Therefore, to answer the second question, I wouldn’t consider that the artist is claiming Toronto in general as their own. By tagging numerous areas in the city, I think that the artist is trying to draw attention to themselves. Once people see their graffiti for the first time in one place, and again in another, they will question who did this and if that artist was the one behind that the other similar piece. Thus, the author has people talking about them and being attentive to their work.
Response to chriss26:
Exactly! We need more visuals in the city that evoke positivity and make us smile as opposed to ones that just promote something or make us feel bad about ourselves. I love that this piece doesn’t seem to have any negativity around and lets your imagination wander.
I enjoyed this blog and agree that for the reason it doesn't show any negative message it should stay. But my question is whether you think it should stay or go based on the image it gives the area. Do you think people would look at it and think it is ugly and degrades that landscape or funny and enhances it?
Response to dom19:
Thanks for your comment on my post! I think the answer to your question depends on the person looking at it and their opinions regarding graffiti. Personally, I think that it is funny and enhances the landscape. As I mentioned in the post, the area is pretty plain looking and not very appealing in terms of scenery. With the presence of this graffiti in the area, I believe it makes it more interesting and doesn't necessarily give the neighbourhood a "bad" image.