Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
29°/18°
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
31°/19°
It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
26°/16°

16 Comments

news

If Appreciating Graffiti is Wrong, We Don’t Want to Be Right

Graffiti pieces on the southeast corner of Bloor and Ossington, on the back of the LCBO. The LCBO attests that the piece was not commissioned by the store, although the artist may have applied for an independent permit from the city.

The premise of graffiti art is that it’s not supposed to be there.

Its appeal comes from being unsolicited and out of place, which is what makes the art form, at times, so unexpectedly beautiful. It’s also what makes graffiti, by definition, illegal. Toronto’s graffiti bylaw [PDF] defines the illegal art form exactly in these terms, as non-commissioned:

GRAFFITI: One or more letters, symbols, figures, etchings, scratches, inscriptions, stains or other markings that disfigure or deface a structure or thing, howsoever made or otherwise affixed on the structure or thing, but, for greater certainty, does not include an art mural.
ART MURAL: A mural for a designated surface and location that has been deliberately implemented for the purpose of beautifying the specific location.
(City of Toronto Graffiti bylaw, 485-1 [PDF])

Most graffiti artists would agree with this definition, although they’re bound to take issue with the rest of Toronto’s Graffiti Abatement Program. If the criminal aspect weren’t so intrinsic to graffiti itself, then perhaps Rob Ford and the graffiti artists of Toronto could come to a compromise involving some brightly-primed, designated brick walls. But the illegal nature of graffiti defines the art form and its culture even more than the use of spray paint or stencils, and the work and message of graffiti artists wouldn’t be the same without the challenges and codes imposed by making illegal art.


20100509banksy_1.jpg
A suspected Banksy piece in Toronto, from his alleged visit to promote his documentary Exit Through the Gift Shop. Photo by Gary Smithson.

Toronto was visited last spring by British graffiti legend Banksy, whose work and biography is probably the best example of the art/vandalism dichotomy that is graffiti art. Toronto allegedly received its first Bansky pieces while the famed artist was in town to promote the release of his documentary, Exit Through the Gift Shop, although the preserved anonymity of the artist makes it hard to prove he was here at all, let alone that the pieces are his work. Like his art, Banksy’s documentary makes a great case for the illegal nature of graffiti.
Exit Through the Gift Shop highlights the appeal of the underground artist’s mystique by juxtaposing him against a joke of an artist who is only in it for the spotlight. After seeing the terrible copycat work this artist produces, Banksy says: “I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don’t do that so much anymore.” This gets to the crux of the graffiti debate for any city: graffiti art is often disgraceful and worthless vandalism, but in the case of some artists, graffiti is a powerful form of artistic expression.
But whether you’re Banksy or the other guy, your work is equally illegal. All we are left with is a totally subjective aesthetic judgement about what should be preserved as art and what should be whitewashed as vandalism. Still, within this wide, sprayed-on spectrum, as within any other art form, we’d like to think there can be some degree of criticism and assessment of artistic merit.
20110530graffititags.jpg

20110530einstein.jpg
Top: an accumulation of tags in the Ossington and Queen West area. Bottom: an expert graffiti piece in the same area.


Toronto’s Graffiti Abatement Program acknowledges this by allowing property owners to apply for an “art mural exemption.” This means that the city will review graffiti works that, although not commissioned, the property owner appreciates and doesn’t want removed. Although this measure accounts for the wide range of artistic merit in graffiti art, it doesn’t clear up the blurry line between vandalism and art—it only categorizes after the fact. By allowing for these exemptions, the City is conceding that beautiful works of art can indeed be created out of illegal circumstances. And even if it’s unintentional, these exemptions legitimize even the crudest of tags, which are part of the visual language and heritage of this art form.
Even in its own publicity, Toronto’s Graffiti Abatement Program can’t avoid the inherent contradictions within value judgements of illegal art. The Toronto Police Services Graffiti Eradication Program, an arm of the Graffiti Abasement Program, uses a scrawled graffiti font in its slogan: “Combat Graffiti.” The stiff block letters of the word “combat” are livened up by the appropriation of a vandal’s hand for the word “graffiti,” which gives the slogan some visual appeal. Even this simple use of typography lends credence to the graffiti art form and its aesthetic influence. The photo gallery of this same initiative displays images of Toronto graffiti that are conceivably meant to motivate a clean-up effort, but even within these four images there are colour combinations and line work that many might consider more than valid grounds for an art mural exemption.

20110530luigi.jpg
A stoned Luigi and some artful tags, also near Ossington and Queen West.


The firmest middle ground between Toronto’s Graffiti Abatement Program and the city’s graffiti artists might just be the illegal identity of graffiti itself. After all, a big part of a graffiti art’s appeal, other than the medium and circumstances, is that the work itself is temporary and vulnerable. Without the threat of eradication, a particularly eye-catching piece of graffiti becomes less valuable to both artist and audience alike. The escalating instances of graffiti taunting Rob Ford that are popping up around Toronto make it clear that, rather than being a deterrent, the crack-down can’t help but fuel the art form and the artists. Surely Banksy doesn’t want any officially sanctioned exemptions for the work he may have left here. Idealistic as it may be, graffiti culture has a built-in model of respect as insurance. If your work is good, other artists won’t mess with it—even though Mayor Ford might.
The City of Toronto, in conjunction with Direct Engagement, will be holding a Graffiti Summit Town Hall on Tuesday, May 31, to discuss a community strategy for graffiti. The Drake Hotel (1150 Queen Street West), 7 p.m., FREE.
Photos by Corbin Smith/Torontoist except where noted.

Filed under: , , , , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • tomwest

    Artistic graffiti like this is all well and good, but I still don't want to see obscenities scrawled in public.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Where are you seeing so many obscenities that it's a concern?

  • http://www.facebook.com/jasonkucherawy Jason Kucherawy

    Are you referring to billboards selling us make-up and bad beer?

  • Tironius Complex

    I like to rape women because it's illegal, which gives me a thrill for what I do. It's an expression of who I am. It's an art.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    That's offensive and stupid.

  • nevilleross

    How is rape the same as graffiti?

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Graffiti thrives in neglected spaces, regardless of accessibility or ownership. With the exception of taggers, graffiti is generally self-censoring: the more prominent the location, the less tolerance is shown for sloppy or crude pieces. Certain buildings, fixtures or surfaces just aren't hit.

    It's wasted effort going after back alley art that will only be seen by delivery truck drivers, roof repairmen and graffiti enthusiasts. Instead, invest that time and effort into the image and upkeep of storefronts and thoroughfares so neglect (and the tagging that follows) doesn't take hold in the first place.

  • tomwest

    On about half the industrial buildings I pass on the way to work.

  • tomwest

    I don't see how you can censor one form of illegal expression with another.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Then you don't know what self-censorship means.

  • http://twitter.com/OcarinaPiffle Ocarina Piffle

    The talent of the artist is irrelevant if the the graffiti is noncommissioned and unwanted.  I doubt the graffiti vandals would want me to come over to their place and spray paint their car, bicycle, house, or clothes.  

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    “The talent of the artist is irrelevant if the the graffiti is noncommissioned and unwanted.”

    The reverse is true as well: the illegality of it doesn't render it Not Art, or mean the artist isn't talented, as some suburban reactionaries seem to think.

    ” I doubt the graffiti vandals would want me to come over to their place and spray paint their car, bicycle, house, or clothes.”

    Where do you live that you see people's cars, houses, bicycles and clothes getting tagged? This recurring argument – that you wouldn't want me to break into your home and paint your carpet or tag your baby's face, so don't spray paint on a dirty walls in back alleys – is cartoonish at best.

  • torontothegreat

    It's funny, I used to think the same thing (re: paint your clothes).  However after more thought, it really is silly.

    If graffiti is a “blight” to your own personal landscape, why would you choose to live in an urban environment?  Graffiti pre-dates you and this city.  Do you really think you're going to get rid of it?

    Also, I don't think people realize how much of the graff is self-enforced by the artists themselves.  When I walk down Spadina, I see these beautiful peices done that are untouched by other artists.

    edit: Meant as a reply to Ocarina Piffle

  • tomwest

    Self-censorship would be choosing not to spray graffiti in the first place…

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Conceptual art, then?

  • rich1299

    I like graffiti that gives something back to the public to appreciate, as in something that's an image or something and well done like much of the examples in this article, what I hate is tagging, as in just plainly scribbling their name in marker or spray paint, since it offers nothing to anyone else is not much different than a dog peeing somewhere to mark their territory, tagging offers nothing to the general public to appreciate, there's nothing artistic about it, it offers nothing to the public to think about or enjoy, its all about the tagger with not the least concern of the public and just makes an area look dirty and run down. Artistic graffiti enlivens an otherwise dull and empty space and gives the public something to look at that can be appreciated. Personally I would hate to see Toronto graffiti free, it would make our city look artistically dead, not that a graffiti free Toronto would ever happen, graffiti has been around since ancient times. Prostitution may be the oldest profession but graffitti is the oldest public art form, its been found since the pyramids were brand new and likely is much older than that, it isn't going to go away, thankfully.