Sometimes, amidst our busy schedules, we forget to look around and recognize what makes the spaces around us unique. When asked to search for graffiti that appeared illegal, I went on a search for something that I figured would appear loud and clear. However, after several days with no luck, I came across the graffiti in the stairwell of ACW on my way to Professor Koopman’s class. I found this graffiti to be unexpected, yet incredibly interesting. As I further analyzed the graffiti over the course of about 2 weeks, I noticed the exact face was drawn in other parts of the ACW stairwell as well. As intrigued I was about why such a face was drawn and by whom it was drawn by, I felt as though it did not suit the space it was amongst. This small, yet powerful image needed to be removed.

As I was able to observe this image going to and from classes, I had created some perceptions of it. The drawing to me, looks similar to a mask of some sort, almost as if it could represent a different identity. The face itself has long eyelashes and a soft smile, which made me believe it was a female who drew this image. However, I did not feel as though the graffiti gendered the space in any way. The crown drawn above the face, had me wondering if it could represent some form of hierarchy. Perhaps the individual who drew the image was trying to prove their type of class or status. Situated in a couple of locations of ACW’s stairwell, I became curious as to why the artist chose a more secluded space as well. In its entirety, the graffiti does not make the space more or less safe, pleasant, pretty, or welcoming. It simply seems to be representative of something personal to the artist. The lack of information about the graffiti, such as who drew it and why they drew it, is what made it interesting for me to observe.

Video

The graffiti, although quite artistic, appears almost as a way to rebel against the university, its authority specifically. McAuliffe and Iveson support this claim by stating, “Graffiti transgresses norms of power and control in urban spaces. It is a part of the ‘subversive space work’ of young people in the face of attempts by powerful adults to define and impose cultural space” (140). I can agree with this statement as I do believe whomever drew this graffiti, did so as a way to prove their own power and ability to the institution as an entirety. Although not explicitly offensive in any way, the principle of the drawing itself had implied for it to be.

In further thinking of this drawing as an artistic representation, McAuliffe and Iveson address the idea of graffiti as neither art or crime. With recognition to the artistic talent these graffiti writers have, McAuliffe and Iveson state. “But this talent is said to be misdirected, and worse, it only encourages those without such talent to think that its okay to write or paint on walls without permission. From this perspective, the proper place for art is in a gallery, not on someone else’s property” (131). This perspective infers graffiti as crime, regardless of whether it is beautiful or not. In agreement with McAuliffe and Iveson’s standpoint, I feel as though it is appropriate to view this graffiti in ACW as crime, as it surely was not given permission for and because it is situated on the private property of an institution.

The graffiti in ACW directly violates the space it is situated in and those who choose to vandalize, are essentially, illegally branding private property. David Sibley discusses the tensions between private and public space as a more recent concern (156). Sibley mentions, “The devaluation of public space and the uncritical appreciation of the private are difficult to resist, despite the social costs of this distinction in terms of heightened fear and expanded surveillance” (159). The distinctions made between public and private spaces can relate to the artist of my chosen graffiti because the artist had made the private space more public regardless of any surveillance. Through their artistic representation and from the power they granted themselves, the artist further created a divide between the space by trying to make it ones own.

Furthermore, I had been made aware that the exact graffiti images in ACW, can be found in other parts of campus as well. With this information, I can presume that the artist was most likely trying to challenge the idea of public and private spaces. Don Mitchell discusses the idea of rights given to cities in relation to public space and states how rights denote power by becoming institutionalized (194). York University, as an institution, gives limited rights to specific individuals, students as an example. In this circumstance, the artist of the graffiti in ACW was most likely not given that right, which is more so a reason to remove the graffiti entirely. Moreover, Mitchell states, “…To fulfill a pressing need, some group or another takes space and through its actions makes it public” (195). The graffiti on campus, specifically that in ACW, is a strong example of how the actions of others have transformed the space and made it more public as a way to challenge against the institution and the power it withholds.

Subsequent to the arguments regarding the disrespect for authority and the violation of the space, I feel as though the graffiti in ACW compromises the institutions image as well. David Harvey discusses varying connotations to the word space. Giving specific attention to the graffiti in ACW and the way in which it does or potentially could comprise the institutions image, I felt as though Harvey’s varying perceptions of space, specifically relational space, greatly emphasizes how such graffiti has the potentiality to compromise an institutions image. Relational space discusses how society shapes space and how space shapes society. The graffiti in ACW, although, most often unnoticed, does cause in turn affects to the space and to society, when it is noticed. To support, Harvey states “An event or a thing at a point in space cannot be understood by appeal to what exists only at that point. It depends upon everything else going on around it” (274). Moreover, the way in which the graffiti is perceived and responded to, will affect how the institution is viewed, and will thus, in turn, affect the university’s image as a whole.

In conclusion, I feel as though the graffiti I have discussed should be removed, simply for the reason that it is not bettering the space it is situated within. In such a large institution I am sure it is difficult to manage circumstances such as graffiti, however, should still be handled with consideration. Do you think graffiti, regardless if it is offensive or not, should be removed if it isn't allowed?