Abstract
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. Indeed, studies prove that ‘graffiti has been called everything from urban blight to artistic expression’ (Gomez 1993: 634). 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’. 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). According to Brighenti, graffiti is an ‘interstitial practice’: a practice about which different actors hold different conceptions, depending on Eur J Crim Policy Res (2016) 22:107–125 DOI 10.1007/s10610-015-9288-4
Highlights
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 may vary considerably, between people but people themselves make different judgments, depending on what they see in which context
A first reading of the data shows that many descriptions refer to places: stations, tunnels, along highways, bridges, rail roads, fences, walls, trains, subways, doors — all places that are known to be popular spots for graffiti writers (e.g. Ferrell and Weide 2010)
We started this article with questioning the notion that the public usually views graffiti unambiguously as disorder, which is often the assumption underlying graffiti policy and many criminological studies on disorder
Summary
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, between people but people themselves make different judgments, depending on what they see in which context. Lombard (2012) calls graffiti ‘art crimes’ because it is criminal and artistic at the same time, which makes it difficult to distinguish ‘artists’ from ‘criminals’. G. Vanderveen, G. van Eijk 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). A response to an interstitial practice always comes in a ‘yes, but’ form: graffiti is crime, or art — but it is always something else (ibid.). White (2000: 253) argues, we should not condemn, nor celebrate graffiti, without considering ‘the ambiguities inherent in its various manifestations’
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
