Most people see graffiti as an eyesore, a public display of the marriage between rebellion and boredom. Most people would be wrong; there is so much more to graffiti than the tag on the bakery window or the racist comment on the side of an educational institution. In more ways than one, graffiti is expression, expression of creativity, expression of frustration with an oppressive society, expression of the inner mind of a young adult that is never heard or seen. For those who were criminalized for making art rather than making war, this is their only output. One cannot simply walk through the city of Toronto for one minute and not stumble across some sort of street art, whether it be a mural, a quote in big bold lettering, or just a simple name; a stamp of a person how wants you to know “I am here, and I will be heard”. A graffiti artist puts a little bit of themselves in their art wherever they place their tag, this is the public place made into the private space with a couple cans of spray paint. Some may say, including Henri Lefebvre, that this cements their “right to the city” (193). The artists right to do as they choose in a perfectly public area, to showcase their talents and to make a voice heard that has never been before.
As per usual, every Thursday or Friday, I get out of my Uber on Adelaide Street downtown and have lunch at Shibui restaurant (the best sushi in town if you ask me). Following this I start my quest for graffiti, although I feel as if this wasn’t very much of a challenge given the area. I walk a total of 25 minutes (spent 5 minutes at Momofuku getting truffles), when I found myself on Queen St and Renfrew Pl stumbling across a gated opening between two stores, which looked like it is used for garbage pick-up. Intrigued at what I catch a gimps of at the corner of my eye, I push open the large black iron gates and find myself looking at what seems to be one of the best graffiti works I have seen in a very long time. There seems to be a central theme of “snakes on a plain” within the scene which is depicted by what seems to be two different artists, one of which calls themself Samuel “Lics” Jackson, and looks like it is circa 2006. (figure 1) I am aw struck as I ponder how such an art piece could be stuck inside a garbage pick-up between a record store and some sort of boarded up building. The opposite wall holds a cluster of more tags from presumably different people but none executed with such skill as this. Despite the ample amounts of graffiti here and other places, Queen Street is quite a prosperous area and known for its eclectic stores and “character”. Crossing the street one can find a jazz bar with similar murals on the side of the building and subsequently mail box, which depicts a raccoon playing the saxophone. This, along with multiple other small businesses and large stone and glass buildings to offset the short air space
. 
figure (1)
Graffiti gives the surrounding area and this little nook a personality that it wouldn’t otherwise have. I feel as if this specific graffiti gives this dead, bland, sad little garbage area, a new life. I believe that when people walk by, they aren’t disgusted, but intrigued, fascinated and aw-struck. I stand back across the street leaning up against my friend; the saxophone playing raccoon-mailbox, and do what I do best; people watch. Not many people seem to be phased by this expression of art. Over the span of about 30 minutes I have seen a young-adult male walking two English terriers, turn his head and take a quick glimpse of the art piece. I have seen an elderly lady turn her head around to look and keep walking, and I have seen a young male stop and take a quick picture of the street art with his phone. Over the span of a couple days that I have come back to this area, that doesn’t really change. This is the sort of social interaction one would find pertaining to this graffiti by an array of different people as described. A quote that best describes this interaction would sound something like: “Cities were necessarily public- and therefore places of social interaction and exchange between people who were necessarily different” (Mitchell, 2003).
Because the names under the work are male one can only assume that the artists behind it were male so there is some sort of aspect the piece that is more masculine and geared towards those of the male variety. In regards to the class, or race aspect of the graffiti in proportion to the surrounding area, one can never really know the race of the artists and the surrounding area is very “hipster-esk”, for lack of a better term, so its anybody’s game at this point. Also, because it is on a street where there is a store foreclosure and multiple instances of graffiti, I don’t see why someone of higher class would stop to smell the roses in this neck of the woods.
Although just because it isn’t someone of the most affluencial backgrounds doing this in this type of eclectic area, does not mean that this person is a “hoodlum” or a criminal for that matter. The government would like the general public to think of these people and regard them as criminals. Graffiti is so much more complex than defacing public property. It is the very reason of it being public property, which should make it encouraged, not frowned upon. McAuliff and Iveson would like to make the argument of, “who gets to call Graffiti illegal and those behind it, criminals?” (2011). The fact is, nobody should have that ability, and there should be more leniency in these aspects of public access to truly “public” space, not just a space that the governing body is in full power over but a place or places, that are made by and for the people to do with as they please. As long as what is depicted is tastefull and not exclusive or offensive to anybody who crosses its path, nobody, including the government, has the right to draw the line between art and crime. “In a world defined by private property, then, public space (as the space of representation) takes on exceptional importance. At the level of basic needs, as Jeremy Waldron (1991) argues, in a society where all property is private, those who own none simply cannot be, because they would have no place to BE” (Mitchell 2003, 194). This highlights the importance of public space as a means of expression, because without it, the people who live in this community shall loose not only their own identity, but the communities identity as a whole will diminish along with it.
References
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
People Place and Space Reader Ch. 47: Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space, p. 289-293
