As sat in the CLH (Curtis Lecture Hall) waiting for my class to begin, I gazed across the room. I can faintly make out various markings left behind by students on the upper half of the hall, which divides the room into two sections leading to the exits. It’s surprising to witness such a flagrant disregard of property, indoors, let alone a lecture hall. I mean where did they find the extra time much less energy to write these things? These inescapable “chat rooms” are a distraction for those who come to class for the lecture, not to be visually offended.

There was a variety of graffiti tags to choose from: quotes, drawings, tiny scribbles; You name it, it was probably there, practically on top of one another covering the wooden beam. From an ironic list of things someone hates, to random words, and even initials (how original!). Out of all the pieces, one in particular stood out to me the most.; Big Blue as i like to call it.

It was where the projector screen was but slightly off centered. So there it sat, smack dab in front of me a bright blue graffiti tag shouting “Speak The F**K Up”! The first thing that came to mind was, that the person was  just professing thoughts of the professor who must have been teaching in the lecture hall at the time. My second thought was that they were trying to engage in a conversation with someone else and they could not hear them, so they got mad and decided to express their frustration on the wooden “chat room”. This one phrase can be translated into different kinds of contexts.

Another piece would be the list that someone wrote, things they hate; Lists, irony, and vandalism, all of which they did on that beam. in my mind they only wrote this just to be funny, to give whoever is reading it a laugh. It shows that people can portray graffiti different ways, from different stand points. Some may see it as a way to make others see what they feel strongly about, others may just take a glimpse of it and call it horrid.

On the beam your able to see the types of writing utensils they used pens and pencils to makers. Some of which are so faint that you can only just make them out. If i had to guess, judging based on the classroom size i’d say they are most likely written by students in their first and/or second year, as they tend to have a larger student population. What I see from the beam in this lecture hall shows that it is just random things being written down by bored university students that wrote on this beam and others who just followed suit.

So is graffiti vandalism or art? They can be both, in some places, they offer designated creativity spaces to legally display graffiti. The people that choose to be accepting of this idea most likely refer to graffiti as art. And the there are others, who use graffiti as a means of retaliation and thoughtlessly defile public spaces with their tagging and then commit the fallacy of equivocation of the word “art”. This is what is referred to as vandalism since they are breaking the rules. People also relate some graffiti with gangs, since some gangs tag to mark their territory. The way I see it graffiti is art, a way in which you express yourself, through any kind of media.

The way you see graffiti is how you are most likely are going to deal with it. Who can truly define art, what may be ugly to some may be beautiful to others. You can give these graffiti artist a place which can help them, develop their different styles. Graffiti is not all negative, there are ones that can give you some positivity or even ones that make you laugh and think. Graffiti can be used to present different kinds of topics that deal with the community and society; there can be messages and inspiring remarks to help the place in which the graffiti is placed.

People can have their views about space and say that since it’s a public space then they should have free range to display graffiti. Even though a space can be preserved as public, it can be privately owned, or even owned by someone non-the less. Just like this lecture it is a private space that is free to the student (public). School is owned and run by certain people, it is a open space to the students but there are rules in which are being implored to enforced vandalism to the property.

I am not opposed to graffiti, just the places in which people put them. Everyone should be able to view graffiti, especially the positive ones. Cutting the viewing down for only a few people, can be good in a way if it only have to involve certain types of people but having graffiti become a “thing” in an art gallery seems like the artist is going against the grain and getting people to pay for something that they could of put out doors.

Graffiti does not belong in lecture halls. The damage in which the tagging inflicts is to the aesthetics of the lecture hall. Especially the blue words, even though the person might have been trying to express what they wanted at that moment, but on a piece of a school fixture, not so much. Writing on a piece of fixture at school, can cause for great problems for whomever, if caught it will lead to consequences, outlined by the student handbook since the school considers this to be vandalism. Although the “artists” are free to express themselves, this may not be the best use of time or energy. Graffiti should be left for the outdoors in a place they can be displayed legally for everyone to partake not in the lecture halls of a university.

Video

References

Mitchell, Don (2003). To Go Again to Hyde Park. in The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. NY: Guilford Press. p. 13–42

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.

Rueda, Manuel (2015). What happened when Bogotá decided to let graffiti artists do their thing. Fusion. March 3^rd.