Filled with beautiful, colourful and positive messages, the space behind Honest Ed’s at Bloor and Bathurst as well as the adjacent Bathurst station features some exquisite mural pieces. The murals feature messages of victory, female accomplishment, aboriginal heritage and educational success. A walk through of this otherwise grim area is now generally filled with inspiration and influential colours. My walk, now entitled a ‘concealed’ message, features an educational success story covered in graffiti. It is my belief that this act of vandalism should be removed, as it is overlays a positive directive.

When speaking about the graffiti itself, we’re often led to question whether it represents an act of vandalism or an expression of art. It is my belief that in the pretexts of this specific piece: the nature of the message, the location and the space it transforms, causes it to be regarded as vandalism and not art.

Although McAuliffe and Iveson make valid points that modern art, much like street art or graffiti is a means of expression (133) to communicate otherwise incommunicable messages. It is my opinion, that the mural itself, representative of positive ideologies of success through education, is concealed by this societal “disruption” (McAuliffe and Iveson, 133). Although the piece does represent “… art beyond the walls of the white cube gallery” (McAuliffe and Iveson, 133) it acts against the “normative patterns” (McAuliffe and Iveson, 131) of the space.

In class, we often discuss an interchanging relationship between society and space, where one is constantly affecting the other. Although the alley where I found this graffiti is an absolute and limited quantity of space, my relation to it does change based on the graffiti. To me, the mural, without the graffiti creates a warmer and more inviting space. Arguably, a space and message geared towards a younger, urban and male based population.

With my relation to education (as a future educator) I loved the mural. The ideologies and the colours present a message of hope and aspiration for our younger generations. The overlaying graffiti acts as a trump to this message. It is my belief that the individual whom vandalised the mural is a youth whom has little or no connection to the education system. The hip-hop style of the lettering and the graffiti’s aggressive nature also leads me to believe that the youth was a male.

Perhaps it is my relation to the space and to the ideology of education versus that of the person whom vandalised it that causes me to believe the graffiti should be removed. The space itself is a public space, it is surrounded by: local shops, boutiques and an adjacent subway station. McAuliffe and Iveson, discuss that graffiti in a public space often represent a form of “private language or communication, written for and understood by only the community of graffiti writers” (133). Although I can appreciate the intimate nature of the writing, the necessity to communicate a message through art and, perhaps even a need to relate a personal disconnect with a societal norm, the graffiti itself changes the nature of the space.

Aforementioned, the graffiti is a part of the public space. Although the message itself may be of a private nature, it is visible to everyone that uses that specific path to the subway station. The graffiti makes the space appear more aggressive and masculine. In normal circumstances, an alleyway is often seen as unchartered territory. Within my cultural upbringing and as a female, alleyways are by nature a place that I try to avoid. However, when laced with graffiti, it adds an extra sense of insecurity and incertitude to the space thus enhancing my already negative relation to it.

In all, the graffiti allows for a transformation of the space. The original transformation from dull and grim alley to bright and inspirational space was done through the use of the mural. The mural created a public atmosphere that was inviting and warm. It permitted the blossom of aspiration and hope. The graffiti transformed this message into a distasteful counter to societal norms. It creates a disruption to what and where students and youth should envision themselves. The graffiti genders the space from light and colourful to a more aggressively masculine space. Prior to the graffiti, the space interacted with society as a public message for public consumption. The graffiti representative of a private message is nonetheless available for public consumption. Considering that the graffiti affects the general public, delivering a message of aversion towards educational success, I do believe it should be removed.

I’ve decided to entitle this piece “A (concealed) Message”, as the message, that was meant to be is now hidden under acts of vandal against societal norms. I chose to emphasize the word concealed by putting it in brackets because the graffiti itself does represent a form of communication. Presenting their own distinct messages, both the mural and the graffiti interact with society differently. It is my belief that the graffiti uses the space to negatively interact with society and inhibit the transfer of a positive message thus it should be removed.