Written rules on what you can and can’t do in a public washroom? You can find this in the women’s bathroom in York University’s Scott library. If it would be my task to decide if it stays or goes, the graffiti will be gone as soon as possible, because it causes a messy washroom, is not aesthetic and carries out wrong values.
As a student living in residence on the campus of York University, my everyday life is centered on here. When I started looking for graffiti, I noticed that there is not a lot of big graffiti to be found on campus. My guess is that big graffiti tags or drawings in most spaces are removed quick and that only the smaller ‘less invasive’ contributions stay. When you change your focus to these smaller graffiti pieces, you notice that there still is quite a lot of graffiti to be found on the campus. Most of the time, it can be found in stairways, public bathrooms and on walls in remote places of the campus. While having an intensive study session in the Scott library, I found this piece of graffiti in the women’s bathroom on the third floor. These bathrooms are quite remote and not very often used, and it was especially quiet on a Sunday morning. I opened the door of the bathroom and found a disgusting looking toilet, but then I noticed this piece of graffiti on the door. It says in blue marker ‘no shit taking allowed’. In another handwriting and in pen you can read ‘I want to poo here’. My guess is that the blue writing is done first and that the writing in pen is a response on the first graffiti piece. However, I am not sure of this, because I saw both pieces at the same time.
I started to ask myself if this piece of graffiti made the space more public or more private. McAuliffe and Iveson (2011) elaborate on this question if graffiti is more public or private. They argue that however graffiti is done in public space, it is not something collective because it is mostly written in a language that is not always understood by everyone. The sentence of my graffiti is written in a clear language, which anyone who speaks English can understand. For this reason, you can argue that it is more public than other graffiti pieces which are not understandable. It is also done in a very public space, as it is a public bathroom. The message and the graffiti itself did not make the place feel more private for me.
If the piece is not making the space more private, what can we say about if it is art or crime? McAuliffe and Iveson (2011) also mention that graffiti can be seen as both crime or art. When arguing that graffiti can be seen as crime, they mention the broken window effect. The effect is described as follows: if one window is broken, the rest will quickly follow. I thought about this when I saw this bathroom stall. The other three stalls were graffiti-free and also a lot more tidy than this stall. It can be a coincidence, but you could also argue that the state of this toilet is a result of the graffiti. I went back to the bathroom multiple times, and this stall was every time the messiest. I noticed people tending to walk in the stall but quickly moved into another stall when they saw the state of the toilet. Also, on the door and walls of the stall there are multiple orange places visible. It looks like the paint is removed in some of these places, when removing other pieces of graffiti. This shows that it is not the first time that graffiti is being written here. In class (October 28, 2015) multiple reasons were given for graffiti to be seen as art. It was most important for most students that it was not offensive, comfortable and aesthetic. I, personally do not think this writing is aesthetic. Also, I do not feel comfortable being in this stall, because I have the feeling that I might be breaking rules someone set. For these reasons, I do not see this graffiti as a piece of art, but rather as a crime.
When I was thinking about who wrote it, I thought immediately of a young male because of the message. Then, I realized that the piece is done in the women’s washroom, which means that it must have been written by a female. I discussed this piece of graffiti with a male friend and he told me that in one of the men’s bathroom stalls in the library, a whole conversation was written using Shakespeare quotes. This really surprised me, as I would have thought that there would be blunt statements in the men’s bathroom as well. This shows that my judgement, based on gender stereotypes, is a misrepresentation of reality.
The meaning of the statement itself can be interpreted in different ways. It most possibly is meant as a joke, both the first writing as the second one. In spite of the fact that it might have been a joke, the graffiti can be seen as a rule or value someone has about this public toilet and the practices that are tolerated here. Mitchell (2003) argues that a public space is public when you have the right to use the space. However it is not expressed by an official institution or law, this graffiti limits someone’s right to fully use this space, as it could be used. It might have been a joke of the second person, but there can be people who have a serious problem with not being able to fully use this space.
Concluding, I want to come back on my statement that this piece of graffiti needs to be removed as quick as possible. If the graffiti stays on the door, it will possibly evoke more responses and they can also be limiting the usage of this space. Secondly, I do think that it is no coincidence that this stall was gross and messy. It is, however, the combination with the graffiti and the bad state of the stall door, which triggers the broken window effect (Iveson & McAuliffe, 2011). I predict that this stall will be taken more care off, when both the graffiti would be removed, and the door would be repainted. Thirdly, the graffiti is not aesthetic and, therefore, I do not see it as art and I cannot appreciate it. It even makes me uncomfortable to be in this bathroom stall. Adding to all this, the graffiti limits your right of using this public space as you want to. For all these reasons, I think this graffiti should be removed.
References
Class discussion (October 28, 2015) Cultural Geography. York University
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.
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
Thanks Iris for this blog post!
I agree with your arguments as to why this graffiti should be removed. I thought of an other reason as to why it should: this graffiti misuses the breaking of order in the space. I think that while graffiti have a power to challenge the order in the environment that can be extremely positive and healthy such as in the case of political or cultural claims, it can also question cleanliness as a whole. This type of graffiti does not serve a purposeful questioning of who has control or power over the space; it rather is a unfortunate representation of York students taking over the space, or having a strong feeling of entitlement to this bathroom.
this was quite a sight for sore eyes to say the least (thanks for the visuals), but yes i agree that the comments written on the door are irrelivant and not even punny, they don't necessary have to be removed. as you stated at the beginning, this washroom is hardly used so who is it really bothering? also i do agree with you as it does make the space more public, those comments on the inside of the stall sort of get you to think of all the other people that have used that specific toilet before and gets you to feel not so at home in a place that you want to feel most alone.
Hi Robert, thanks a lot for your comment.
It is a very interesting question that you pose. I think that just the fact that something is hardly being used, still does not justify messages like this and vandalism on University's property. Also, I think that this bathroom might be more frequently used, when it would be cleaner. However you can not say that it is messy just because of the graffiti, I do think that the graffiti attributes to the messiness of these stalls.
Adding to this it is interesting what you note about that the graffiti reminds you of other people using the bathroom. I hadn't thought about it in this way yet.
Hi Chloe, thanks a lot for your comment!
It is good to read that you agree with my argument and especially that you found an additional reason to question this piece of graffiti. I totally agree with you that this comment questions the order of this space, but not in a positive way. I did not think about the feeling of entitlement to this bathroom the student who write this graffiti could have, but it is a very interesting thought.
Wonderful post Iris but what an awful looking stall.
You mention that the stall is regularly avoided by everyone when they see it's condition. Do you think this promotes the Space-Society cycle (whereas space influences how individuals in society interact with each other thus influencing how society interacts with space) we talk about in class?
Although I quite like washroom graffiti and find it quite interesting, I understand where you are coming from in wanting it removed. What do you think the University's administration can do to prevent further tags and how would those ideas make the space more public/private?
I enjoy reading your post just because we have talked about this graffiti in the past. I like the direction you brought the article and your relation to the broken glass theory. I believe it applies well in this situation. Like many of the other people who commented, I personally have no issue with bathroom stall graffiti, most of the time they can provide a good laugh, especially in this case.
My question to you would be what came first, the graffiti or the lack of cleanliness in that bathroom? Many of the stalls in the Scott Library forget to be taken care of and I think that could lead to people feeling like it is okay to write on them. It's sort of a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" kind of comment.
All in all, very awesome post!
Hi Dru, thanks a lot for your comment!
Your comment and your questions made me think quite deeply about my graffiti again.
I think you could say that the Space-Society cycle could be applied here. The question that will always be unanswered, however, is if it all starts with the space or the society. Was the space always messy and did this invite a student (the society) to write a graffiti piece? Or was the bathroom stall once very clean and did it start being messy when the first piece of graffiti was written on the stall?
The opinion you have about what comes first, determines the measurements which can be taken to prevent further tags. I think that both a messy and a total white and shiny washroom invites students to write graffiti. Just as I am writing this answer, I think that the answer might be to facilitate for students to engage in graffiti in a less permanent way. The administration could repaint the whole washroom and provide a chalkboard in each stall with chalk for the students to write on. These boards could be cleaned every week. In this way, the students can leave their messages, but it is never permanent and if it works, it avoids the costs of removing graffiti and repainting the stalls.
The administration could even encourage to leave positive messages. At a music festival in Hungary (but I know they were on multiple places) I once saw a wall of chalkboard with at the top “Before I die”. Underneath everyone wrote the thing they wanted to do or accomplish before they die (http://beforeidie.cc/site/). Now I am actually thinking that could be a good idea, but it also limits graffiti writers again in freely expressing their opinion. I am just not sure if you should be able to freely write your opinion in a bathroom stall.
I would like to answer your last question if these measurements would make the space more public or private. That is a very tricky question and I would say it would make it both at the same time in a different perspective. It would make it more private because you cannot write everywhere freely your opinion. But it also makes it way more public because everyone would be encouraged to express their opinion about what they want to do before they die and people can engage with each other. This makes a very public space where you are always alone, in a space where you can engage with other people, albeit in your mind.
As I already said, your questions really made me think about my post, thank you for this! I hope I have been able to answer your questions clearly. I did not comment on your post, but it is interesting that you posted as well about bathroom graffiti and that your graffiti gave you a completely different feeling than mine. Instead of make a messy stall even messier, you stated that is loosened a very clean and strict environment and made you feel more comfortable. It is interesting to see how a different environment and a different message can give a whole different feeling.
I agree with you that this type of graffiti makes a public space highly private. For a very sensitive area like the rest rooms where privacy is highly desired, reading graffiti words are definitely uncomfortable to some people. How do you think that the school administration can prevent this type of vandalism? Do you think we have to live with the fact that since there can never be direct supervision, it is bound to happen? Do you think maybe educating students on not vandalizing will work?
Hi Jacqueline, thanks a lot for your comment on my blog post!
It is interesting to read that you think the broken window theory applies well, because we also talked about this in class. As you can see, Dru asked about the Space-Society cycle but it is difficult to determine what came first, the space or the society. I think you can relate this to your question. And then my answer is, it is really difficult to determine what comes first. However, I know that the bathrooms are cleaned every day, but the graffiti stays. And every time, this is one of the messiest washrooms. I am clearly not sure about what came first, but I know that the graffiti is first every morning, because the stalls are clean in the morning.
Hi Kevin, thank you for your comment.
It is good to read that you agree that the graffiti can make the space more private. As you can read in the comments above, other people also asked about what the administration can do to prevent graffiti in washroom stalls. I think it is a very difficult problem to solve, because as you mention, you can’t supervise whatever happens in the stalls. I am also not sure if it would help if the university would give students education about vandalizing. We all know that some things might even attract more when people know that it is illegal. For this reason, I think that a solution might be to facilitate for students to leave their mark behind, but in a more controlled and less permanent way. The suggestion I came up with is to provide chalkboards somewhere in the washrooms where students can write what they want. These boards can be cleaned easily and frequently. The administration could encourage students to make a positive contribution. However, this is a long shot and it might be possible that it will not work as well or that all the other parts of the washroom still will be vandalized.