The fifth floor of Scott Library on York’s Keele campus is reserved for those most dedicated to studying without distraction.  The top floor of the library is the place to go if you require absolutely no interruptions while working on that essay or studying for your midterm.  And though that space may be void of loud distractions such as study groups or music, it is on the fifth floor that one is able to find a different type of distraction; the graffiti scribbled on the cement walls beside the private study cubicles.  Each preceding floor has had those walls scrubbed clean of graffiti, and yet the space that is supposed to be completely distraction-less, has walls covered in little conversations that anyone is free to join, declarations of love, and even some inappropriate middle school-esque doodles.

The presence of this graffiti mosaic results in a contradiction of the space.  The fifth floor of Scott Library has a very low tolerance for any noisy distractions, (see the Quiet Zone signs posted throughout the floor) yet has the ‘loudest’ graffiti of any of the floors. The purpose of the ‘Quiet Zone’ signs are to deter students from distracting others with noise, and yet, not one foot away from students hard at work, is a wall covered with long, cross-linked conversations.   It is very easy to let one’s mind wander as they follow the series of arrows leading to a new authors commentary, which becomes detrimental when it distracts a student from their work.  In a way, the graffiti is just as bad of a distraction as actual noise interruptions, as one may not necessarily be kicked out of the library for reading some scribbles on a wall.

The artists of these piece are clearly those students who went to the fifth floor with serious intentions to study, but fell victim to the temptations of marking their territory with a small heart or their deep internal conflicts at the time.  Because many of the original posts have commentary from multiple other sources, this mosaic of graffiti supports the broken window theory.  As discussed in McAuliffe and Iveson’s “Conceptualizing Graffiti in the City”, the broken window theory states that graffiti is seen as an invitation to add one’s two cents to the picture; that a piece of graffiti will initiate the addition of more graffiti, and therefore further the decay of the surface.  Students who are looking for reasons to put off doing their work may see the wall as their opportunity to share what they really think Amir loves.  In regards to what demographic has participated in the defacement of this wall, there appears to be a wide range of artists responsible.  The content itself ranges from something that was quite obviously written by a male to quite obviously written by a female, with some pieces not appearing to be gendered at all; I personally do not find the general space to be gendered as a result of this graffiti.  In terms of the race of the artists, nothing but the names written gives the viewer an idea of their ethnicity.

The presence of the graffiti, in my opinion, makes the space more public, as anyone is able to join in the conversation.  As seen in the featured image of this post, what may have started out simply as a quote or personal statement, has been turned into an exchange between, what is likely, a complete stranger and the original piece’s author.  The wall has now become a forum in which students can leave messages that, within some time, may receive a response on the other side of it.  Students can return there and see what their thoughts have ignited in others.  Furthermore, the graffiti makes the space more public because it changes the atmosphere of the area.  I personally find the fifth floor to be quite intimidating, what with the constant awareness of how loud your movements are, and the fear of bothering others who are studying.  The graffiti takes an edge off the seriousness of the space, which I associate with a space being public.

Scott Library Fifth Floor Video

This in mind, I do not think that the graffiti should stay.  The main argument for the removal of these pieces is that the location is the opposite of appropriate.  Though occasionally interesting, the placement of this graffiti takes away from the purpose of the private cubicles, by distracting those who have gone there to study.  It is far to easy to become preoccupied reading what previous students have had on their mind, or for those more daring, adding to the collage of humorous, if not crude doodles.  However, I do believe that the concept of the graffiti, that is adding new thoughts to those written previously, is something that should be represented elsewhere, namely a location in which students do not go when worrying about deadlines looming on the horizon.

 

Though I am at York five days a week, I have not yet seen another piece of graffiti that matches the magnitude of this collection of work; usually only the odd doodle or tag.  This collage of pieces has outlived all of its equals that had flourished on the lower floors, which raises the question of why has this floor not yet been cleared of its graffiti.  Hopefully it is removed before more students lose valuable study time to analyzing the sleep-deprived thoughts of the students before them.