Abstract
For this examination, graffiti and neo-graffiti have been compared to public art in order to reveal the ideological constructions of urban public spaces. How does graffiti interact with the construction of urban public spaces? How is graffiti similar to and different from public art? Which of these art forms better represents the public and city living? By comparing public art to (neo)graffiti in Toronto, Ontario and Los Angeles, California, the gendered, racialized, and class-based exclusions present in R. Florida's (2002) creative cities framework as theorized by authors such as N. Smith (1996), Sharon Zukin (1996), and G. Standing (2011) can be revealed. Urban public spaces are carefully shaped by those in control, the government and corporations, with the intention of creating spaces and citizens within those spaces that can be a functioning part of their neoliberal capitalist system. Graffiti and neo-graffiti act as a visual interruption to this system, which in turn can be thought of as physically represented by public art. In this way (neo)graffiti is created by a minority of citizens with the hopes of reclaiming their right to exist in urban public spaces despite layers of ideological exclusions.For this examination, graffiti and neo-graffiti have been compared to public art in order to reveal the ideological constructions of urban public spaces. How does graffiti interact with the construction of urban public spaces? How is graffiti similar to and different from public art? Which of these art forms better represents the public and city living? By comparing public art (neo)graffiti in Toronto, Ontario and Los Angeles California, the racialized and class-based exclusions present in R. Florida’s (2002) creative cities framework theorized by authors such as N. Smith (1996), Sharon Zukin (1996), and G. Standing (2011) can be revealed. Urban public spaces are carefully shaped by those in control (the government and corporations) with the intention of creating spaces and citizens within those spaces that can be a functioning part of their system. Graffiti and neo-graffiti act as a visual interruption to this system as represented by public art. In this way (neo)graffiti is created by a minority of citizens with the hopes of reclaiming their right to exist in urban public spaces despite the layers of exclusions.
Highlights
The continuous presence of graffiti in the urban public sphere suggests that it is more than mere vandalism
This will become clear by focusing on the contemporary examples ofgraffiti and public art located in Toronto, Ontario and Los Angeles, California
As the examination of graffiti, neo-graffiti, and public art reveals, some art forms and citizens are acceptable in urban public spaces while others are not
Summary
The continuous presence of graffiti in the urban public sphere suggests that it is more than mere vandalism. Graffiti and its cousin neo-graffiti participate in and against the spatial politics of containment, exclusion, and appropriation that tacitly exist in the ideologies of urban public spaces (Waclawek, 2011).1 These operate at the intersection of urban development via the creative cities formula for gentrification, social organization focusing on the government’s effect on the structures of labour, and artistic expressions of the graffiti subculture and public art.
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 callMore From: Stream: Interdisciplinary Journal of Communication
Disclaimer: 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.
