Wandering around the city is something that I enjoy during my leisure time and a great coping mechanism I use when I am feeling stressed. Roncesvalles or 'Roncy' is probably one of the neighbourhoods I frequently walk through, since it is near my neighbourhood. What makes Roncesvalles unique is that although it is located in between one of the two busiest streets in Toronto (Bloor Street and Queen Street), the atmosphere is significantly like a small town. Roncesvalles is a peaceful family residential neighbourhood which seems to have everything compact in one street. There are churches, schools, a retirement home, a small library, a hardware store, etc. Even though there are a few name brand businesses, the community thrives on the fact that most stores and restaurants are locally owned. The graffiti I chose was located on top of a small produce market on Rocesvalles. This piece of graffiti is not art, it is a crime of vandalism. Even though it is not as noticeable, I find it to be distracting, negative and ultimately, I believe it should go away.
Personally, when depicting art, it is quite a struggle for me, probably because I lack patience or because I am not artistic. Describing this piece of graffiti, I feel as it is someone's personal signature. I can not translate to what it says but it is a word outlined with blue spray paint on a white background. In my opinion, graffiti is art, but this graffiti shown above isn't. Many have argued that there is a dualism with graffiti (McAuliffe and Iveson, 2011). If a piece of graffiti is art, then it is also connected with vandalism and if graffiti is vandalism, it is connected with art. I disagree because it's hard to classify this as art when to me it shows no meaning. In a news article, the author states "A “piece” is even more elaborate, and usually involves several colours." (Miller, 2015). Despite the blue outline of spray paint, it shows no colour and it is very dull. Also, since this is tagging, I believe this person's intention was to mark his/her territory. If the person's intention was to express his/her art, they would of placed the piece in a more public area, somewhere where it would stand out. The piece of work is placed high on top, behind the store. Also with the piece being located on the second storey of the property, it is easy to assume that this person is an adolescent because during this stage, teenagers are likely to go to greater measures to break the law. Everyone goes through a rebellious phase, the feeling of breaking the law can increase your ego and be a high for many (Alcoba,2011).
Another reason why the graffiti should go away is because of how unwelcoming it looks. In Roncesvalles, there are a few murals around the neighborhood. The difference between the murals and this piece of graffiti is that the murals are inviting. It becomes public because the community uses these large murals to welcome other people that do not reside there. The murals are based on what Roncy represents, murals such as people waiting for the 504 streetcar (only public transportation route there), or old historic buildings that were or still there. McAuliffe and Iveson argues that graffiti is a private communication between one person to another (2011). Since the graffiti above is hard to understand, it makes the space around it private. It also makes it private because only people who understand the graffiti, would only benefit from this tag.
The space around the graffiti is a big factor to how we perceive everything. Being that Roncy is a residential area, the graffiti is highlighted to be much more negative. Considering it is a quiet area and it is mostly families and retirees that reside there, a piece that can look dull can be portrayed as bold and extreme. Compared to Queen Street, where Graffiti Alley, Milky Way and Reclamation Wall is located, Graffiti becomes part of their identity. Queen Street's culture has always been all about being different and stepping out of the box. The loud and busy atmosphere incorporated with colorful art plastered everywhere is seen as acceptable. If the graffiti I chose was located anywhere in Queen Street, it would be like finding a needle in a haystack, it would be almost impossible. The Graffiti can define the space, but it also comes back to space defining its surroundings.
The graffiti should be taken out of this space because it effects the owner's space. It is selfish to tag or put graffiti on someone's property without permission. Small local stores are victimized the most because it is already a struggle to make income, but with hurdles like this, it becomes even more difficult. Think of it this way, imagine parking your new car in a parking lot and coming back later to see that someone scratched it with their key. You didn’t deserve it but because it’s you're car, you have to pay for it. To show how expensive it is to remove graffiti off of property in the city I will use an example I read from a news article online (Atchison,2013). In this article, a man who owns a heritage building (since the 1970s) had graffiti on his building. Since it was auto paint used on brick wall, the estimate cost to clean the graffiti was about ten thousand dollars. On top of that, what's even more ridiculous is that when commercial property owners fail to remove it from their buildings, they can be fined by the city.
Figure 1. Wall covered with graffiti.
But some times as much as you want it taken off, you can’t because it’s too expensive. When I was taking pictures of the area, what I noticed was a lot of smaller graffiti pieces were located in the same space (see figure 1) . The ‘Broken Window Theory’, which states that if one side of the building’s window is broken and it is not fixed, eventually all of the windows in each side of the building will all be broken (McAullife and Iveson,2011) . In this case, since the owner did not take down the first piece of graffiti, people will keep tagging in that space because everyone else is. It also effects the value of the property and the properties around the space because when looking at the graffiti, people can assume that it is a dangerous area.
To me, graffiti is a way you express yourself to the public by using your creative ability. I believe graffiti should be classified as art only if everyone is able to understand it. What I saw at Roncy was not art, it was a crime of vandalism. It was someone marking his or her territory. It financially hurts the income of the owner and residents around the space. Not only does it make the neighbourhood unwelcoming, it is ugly, negative and ultimately, it need to go away.
Reference
Alcoba, Natalie. (2011, March 19) Spray up: Inside Toronto’s graffiti scene. National Post. Retrieved from: http://news.nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/spray-up-inside-torontos-graffiti-scene
Atchison, Chris. (2013, April 8). Art or crime? Graffiti pushes cities to try new measures. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/property-report/art-or-crime-graffiti-pushes-cities-to-try-new-measures/article10854465/?page=all
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.
Miller, Liam. (2015, March 26). Not all graffiti is vandalism – let’s rethink the public space debate. The Conversation. Retrieved from: http://theconversation.com/not-all-graffiti-is-vandalism-lets-rethink-the-public-space-debate-38972
Very well done!
This was really interesting and I totally agree with you that writers should have no authority to vandalize any space because it ultimately has a great impact on the owner of the property. I could just imagine how difficult it is for a local resident to see their property destroyed in this way. However, you stated that you find this piece "shows no color and it is very dull" but I feel that it actually stands out really well with the thick blue outlines and white interior. In addition, its located at a rooftop which would catch any ones eyes easily because of the location or space of the graffiti. Also, the fact that its hard to read would actually make me stop and think what it is trying to say because I was browsing through your post - I actually took a while and tried to read the piece and I feel that if I were ever walking by it - then I would actually stop and think what the writer's motive for this piece is and what they are trying to convey privately in a public space. Moreover, why did they decide to choose a up high rooftop wall versus a normal regular wall that almost most writers use for their creation.
Furthermore, you also mentioned that the fact that you can't understand the graffiti makes the place a private area for the writer to convey to those that can read this and only the writer is benefiting from this piece. I also agree with your statement because obviously a person that can read this is at benefit at most. As McAullife also states that writers often write in a way that only people that work with graffiti could understand. I believe this would be an excellent example of McAullife's interpretation of private communication because most likely people without any experience in graffiti would not understand this piece. However, I still believe that its a piece of art or creativity because not many people can hold a spray can and paint away a piece like this but I also agree that its vandalism because after all its placing something without permission. Therefore, I would agree that
McAuliffe is correct that one can not place graffiti into art or crime and that it could be both.
I agree that it's selfish to tag someone's property without permission of the property owner, and it should be removed. I also think it's unfair that it's the responsibility of the owner to clean it up, and I feel that the city should pay at least half to get it removed.
What would your opinion be on the graffiti if it's stuff that people could understand?
You mentioned that the graffiti is not as noticeable, so I doubt that it would be turned into a mural. Other than a mural, what else can be changed about the graffiti to make it more welcoming?
nabila92,
Thank you for your input, Im glad you found it interesting! To me I thought it was dull because since I live in the city, I felt like i've seen this before. It wasn't really interesting in my eyes and like I stated above, if it was on Queen st. , I probably would of not noticed it. Also, in person the piece is actually quite faded. When I was there to take pictures, the sun was faced on the piece and I had to edit it the lighting to make it stand out (also didn't want to climb up the roof and take a better picture). Since I believe that this person was an adolescent, I think the person went up to the rooftop for the high they get or because they wanted to break more rules in the process.
keshav32,
Thanks for reading my post! I think that if the piece of graffiti was something that everyone could understand and it was something that is not vandalism (ex. genitals, or inappropriate words), then I would be fine with it. But I also think it comes down to if it's private property or public property because I am completely against it, if it's on private property and the owner did not give their blessing. I also think it comes down to where the graffiti is place and what space it is on.
I think it's best if the the owner paints the walls and hopes for the best that it will not happen again.