![]() Second, we elaborate insights on the role of context by examining judgments of graffiti in various micro places. Here we build on Millie’s ( 2011) work on value judgments in relation to criminalization. Based on qualitative and quantitative data we empirically unravel the different viewpoints on graffiti of the public in the Netherlands. However, in our study we show that opinions on disorder also vary significantly among the public. It is assumed that the uninformed public, as well as authorities and media, cannot distinguish one form of graffiti from another, thus interpreting all graffiti as evidence of increased gang activity, young people’s disrespect for authority or a threat to property values and neighbourhood safety (Ferrell 2009). Indeed, we would expect that the perspective of graffiti writers differs from the perspective of the public (Brighenti 2010), as the underlying meaning and subcultural codes of graffiti are unknown to the average street user (Ferrell 2009 Young 2012). Many studies point at the mismatch of interpretations of graffiti as either art or crime between writers on the one hand and authorities, (supposedly) reflecting the concerns of the public, on the other hand (Whitford 1991 Gomez 1993 Halsey and Young 2006 Millie 2008 Snyder 2006 Dickinson 2008 Edwards 2009 Lombards 2012 McAuliffe 2012 Young 2012 Haworth et al. First, we observe that there has been much less attention for diverging (and conflicting) interpretations among the public. Our study engages with and critiques this line of argument in two ways. 1997 Kleinhans and Bolt 2013) and invite crime (Wilson and Kelling 1982 Wagers et al. 2005), undermine collective efficacy (Sampson et al. In this line of argument, ‘disorder’ would trigger fear (Ross and Jang 2000 Xu et al. Studies in the tradition of the broken windows theory and social disorganization theory seem to assume that the public more or less agrees on what phenomena are ‘disorder’, and graffiti would be one of such phenomena. Snyder 2006 Young 2010 Kramer 2010a Tempfli 2012 Uittenbogaard and Ceccato 2014). Informed by the broken windows theory, many local governments seek to prevent and remove graffiti (e.g. Yet, authorities, and many criminologists as well, tend to see graffiti as an unambiguous signal of disorder or even crime. The question as to when and why which forms of graffiti are perceived as criminal and by whom, remains an open question. Graffiti can be problematic, but not all graffiti is. tag, mural) cross legal definitions - the works of the (in)famous writer Banksy illustrate this point (Banksy’s work is often illegal but his work has also been sold and has featured in exhibitions, for example alongside Andy Warhol). Our perspective is that there is no clear-cut distinction between graffiti and street art and that definitions based on form (e.g. Graffiti comes in many forms, varying from tag graffiti to artistic pieces and stencil art, and from illegal sprayings on public or private property to murals on legally designated walls. Therefore, White ( 2000: 253) argues, we should not condemn, nor celebrate graffiti, without considering ‘the ambiguities inherent in its various manifestations’. A response to an interstitial practice always comes in a ‘yes, but’ form: graffiti is crime, or art - but it is always also something else (ibid.). ![]() According to Brighenti, graffiti is an ‘interstitial practice’: a practice about which different actors hold different conceptions, depending on how it is related to other practices such as ‘art and design (as aesthetic work), criminal law (as vandalism crime), politics (as a message of resistance and liberation), and market (as merchandisable product)’ ( 2010: 316). ![]() Even graffiti writers recognize that graffiti, while for them in the first place art, in some contexts is damaging or inappropriate (Rowe and Hutton 2012). Lombard ( 2012) calls graffiti ‘art crimes’ because it is criminal and artistic at the same time, which makes it also difficult to distinguish ‘artists’ from ‘criminals’. Indeed, studies prove that ‘graffiti has been called everything from urban blight to artistic expression’ (Gomez 1993: 634). The citation above, of a participant in our study who describes his first image of graffiti that comes to mind, summarizes our argument: public opinions on disorder (graffiti, in this case) may vary considerably, not only between people but people themselves make different judgments, depending on what they see in which context. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |