See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279961915

Concepts of Graffiti: Much More than Just Art

Conference Paper · September 2007

CITATIONS READS
0 3,592

1 author:

Theresa Zolner
Athabasca University
12 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Theresa Zolner on 10 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Abstract

The focus of this paper is on the threads of discourse that have occurred in the

professional psychological literature with regard to graffiti primarily during the 20th

century. A review of psychological research on graffiti is presented, with the outcome

that little consensus exists in the literature regarding graffiti. Discussion is then presented

regarding graffiti as a culture-based concept, as well as graffiti as an antisocial subculture

that affects its acceptance as a form of art. While graffiti might be discussed as art or

crime, it is much more than both and is an indicator of important groups and subcultures

that operate amongst us on a daily and ever-increasing basis. Suggestions are made for

ways that graffiti might be promoted legally with assistance from peer mentors who

discourage illegal graffiti and encourage prosocial forms of training in the arts.

Keywords: graffiti, alternative art programs, peer mentoring, youth culture, delinquency
Concepts of Graffiti 2

Concepts of Graffiti: Much More than Just Art 1

Considerable international debate exists about the status of graffiti as crime, art,

political protest, or otherwise. The debate is public, and it has tended to find its deepest

roots of discourse in the sociological literature, where it has a long history of study and

discussion, although graffiti largely is an interdisciplinary topic, with considerable

research and commentary in other disciplines, such as art, education, and psychology. In

addition, many of the landmark studies of graffiti have focused on the super metropolis of

New York City, where contemporary graffiti and hip-hop culture has had its greatest

formative influence (Snyder, 2009; Miller, 2002; Austin, 2001; Macdonald, 2001;

Castelmen, 1982).

The focus of this paper is primarily on the cultures of discourse that have occurred

regarding graffiti in the psychological literature over time, as well as how those theme

find their expression in community discourse within Canadian society. To a certain

degree, this paper fills a gap in the existing psychological literature as an overview of

major themes in graffiti research within psychology, which turn out to be highly varied.

The variety of conceptualizations about graffiti in the psychological literature also are

demonstrated in community discourse about graffiti, and both often have moral tones. A

example of community discourse will be taken from a public discussion of graffiti that

occurred in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan that illustrates some of the controversies and

uneasy disagreements with regard to the values contained within that discourse at a

1
This paper is based upon a presentation in Saskatoon, SK at T.A.G.S. – 3: The Anti-Graffiti Symposium,
September 13, 2007.
Concepts of Graffiti 3

community level. Arising out of the Saskatoon discussion was a discussion of outreach to

at-risk youth in the city. In relation to this theme, the concept of graffiti as antisocial

subculture also is explored in the paper and its relationship to the prosocial socialization

of at-risk youth.

While graffiti might be discussed as art or crime, it is much more than both and is,

in fact, an indicator of important groups and subcultures that operate amongst us on a

daily and ever-increasing basis. Moreover, graffiti, itself, demonstrates the

irreconcilability of differences that can occur amongst people, as well as the difficulty of

meeting the needs and demands of people who hold radically opposing perspectives and

beliefs, yet are responsible for youth socialization. Graffiti is much more than just art; it

is a lightning rod for opinions about the very beliefs that we cherish in Canadian society,

namely our rights to private property, good governance, and freedom of expression.

Graffiti as a Culture-Based Concept

The concept of graffiti rests upon the pre-existing concepts of private property,

public governance, and belief in the authority of people to grant permission to use a

space. These three concepts are integral to the structure and functioning of contemporary

Canadian society. Other societies or specific cultural groups may share some, all, or few

of our values and laws with regard to property, governance, and personal expression. In

fact, the concept of graffiti is inherently tied to how a society or culture conceptualizes

land or property use, governance, and ownership.

Sometimes, graffiti is conceptualized as an act with historical roots going as far

back as ancient cave drawings (Duane-Gladden, 2010; Guthrie, 2006; Brongersma,

1990). One of the difficulties with linking modern graffiti with ancient cave drawings is
Concepts of Graffiti 4

that the argument often fails to mention the social and moral context in which the mark-

making occurred. Ancient cultures might or might not have had similar expectations,

laws, or values associated with property ownership, governance, and use, making

comparisons of mark-making across eras and cultures undeniably procrustean,

anachronistic, or superficial at best.

In contemporary times, a child with a large felt marker heading directly for the

walls in your living room likely would be redirected. If the child manages to write on the

walls, conscience parents likely would instruct the child that this is not an allowed place

to write and draw. The scribbles likely would be removed or painted over, and the child

would be encouraged to scribble on something more suitable, like on paper or with soap

crayons on the bathtub walls.

Most Canadian children exposed to writing and drawing implements learn quickly

where they are allowed to make marks. By school age, most children understand that

writing on walls, furniture, or other property is not freely permitted in our society. While

the fondly embraced children’s book Harold and the Purple Crayon (Johnson, 1955)

might celebrate the wonders of imagination drawn freely all over, a smaller segment of

parents or guardians would tolerate drawing on objects in the family home.

The Study of Graffiti within the Field of Psychology

A study of the professional psychological literature reveals that the concept of

graffiti encompasses a broad range of acts that are studied and discussed for a variety of

purposes across a variety of contexts. These acts might be classified into a few higher-

order categories that encompass the nature of most graffiti. What has been termed

“graffiti” in the psychological research historically tends to fall within the following
Concepts of Graffiti 5

categories: tags, public statements or messages, mural-style writing and drawing,

scrawling and/or elaboration, as well as writing on bathroom walls (which has been

studied surprisingly frequently), bus stops, or desks – certainly other forms of graffiti also

exist, but these are the acts and context most frequently studied in the literature that was

reviewed. A clear common thread through all of these categories is that all of these acts

occur within public view and are created on public or private space without any formal or

informal permission from the property owners. These two characteristics – (1) publicly

viewable and (2) on public or private space without permission – are essential aspects of

what makes these acts “graffiti.”

Although graffiti is discussed widely both in the literature and in the broader

community, the way in which psychological researchers discuss graffiti varies quite

astonishingly. A review of the psychological research literature within the PsycINFO

database from the start of the database until 2010 focusing on articles containing the word

“graffiti” leads to the conclusion that graffiti has been described with a great degree of

variability. Based on this review, graffiti has been described in the psychological

literature as “blots on the landscape” (Noonan, 2006); a way to make public statements

while in adolescence (Othen-Price, 2006); a quest for identity development (Brotherton,

2006; Fuhrer, 2004; Peters, 1990; Roscoe & Evans, 1986; Peretti, Carter, & McLinton,

1977); an indicator of alcohol effect, cigarette use, or physical activity (Hume, Salmon, &

Ball, 2007; Miles, 2006; Nordmarker, Norlander, & Archer, 2000; Norlander,

Nordmarker, & Archer, 1998; Korytnyk & Perkins, 1983); an indicator of physical

disorder and/or perceived social problems (Miles, 2006; Bowling, Barber, Morris, &

Ebrahim, 2006; Cohen, Farley, & Mason, 2003; Alvi, Schwartz, DeKeserdy, & Maume,
Concepts of Graffiti 6

2001; Ross, Mirowsky, & Pribesh, 2001; Ross & Jang, 2000; Aneshensel & Sucoff,

1996; Ruback & Patnaik, 1989); a form of art or visual self-expression of ideas or

emotions (usually negative emotion, political statements, or protest-related ideas; Eglash,

Bennett, O’Donnell et al., 2006; Hanes, 2005; Hanauer, 2004; Gyasi Obeng, 2000;

Giannini & Bonaiuto, 1999; Scheibel, 1994; Lucca & Pacheco, 1986; Schwartz &

Dovidio, 1984; Una Juarez & Fernandez Franco, 1983; Peretti, Carter, & McLinton,

1977; Jorgenson & Lange, 1975; Lomas, 1973); a form of violence (Bourns & Wright,

2004); a form of defiance to authority or cultural influence (McCormick, 2003; Lasley,

1995; Greeson, 1990; Una Juarez & Fernandez Franco, 1983; Viqueira Hinojosa, 1982;

Pennebaker & Sanders, 1976; Solomon & Yager, 1975); a marker for gang territory and

authority (Othen-Price, 2006; Davis, 2003; Knox, 2001; Etter, 1999; Knox, 1996;

Anderson & Dyson, 1996; Lasley, 1995; Legendre, 1989; Brown, 1978); a deviant,

destructive, problematic, or criminal behavior (Ritter & Eslea, 2005; Davis, 2003;

Chekroun & Brauer, 2002; Norlander, Nordmarker, & Archer, 1998; Uchiyama,

Inokuchi, & Oikawa, 1996; Ruback & Patnaik, 1989; Lomas, 1980; Lomas, 1976), as a

method used in stalking (Seva, 2003); a form of existential coping or spontaneous

memorization in response to national loss (Luzzatto & Jacobson, 2001; Klingman &

Shalev, 2001; Klingman, Shalev, & Pearlman, 2000); a social symptom of parental

neglect (Morrison, Young, & Young, 1998); a subculture reflecting socialization not

related to gangs (Halsey & Young, 2006; Lasley, 1995; Brewer & Miller, 1990; Klofas &

Cutshall, 1985); a possible or unlikely form of cultural or social dialogue (Alvermann,

Hagood, Heron-Hruby et al., 2007; Maybin & Moss, 1993; Lucca Irizarry & Pacheco

Maldonado, 1983; Anderson & Verplanck, 1983; Bourgeois & Campagne, 1971; Collins
Concepts of Graffiti 7

& Batzie, 1970); a form of sexual harassment (Terpstra & Baker, 1987); a primitive

product of the non-artistic, insane mind (Marie, 1929); and art (Eglash, Bennett,

O’Donnell et al., 2006; Giannini & Bonaiuto, 1999; Webb, 1985).

Some threads of research discuss the validity or usefulness of graffiti as an object

of research (Lynn & Lea, 2005; Schreer & Strichartz, 1997; Klofas & Cutshall, 1985;

Sechrest & Belew, 1983; Buser & Ferreira, 1980; Bates & Martin, 1980; Deiulio, 1973;

Rhyne & Ullmann, 1972; Collins & Batzie, 1970), how to deter graffitists (Craw, Leland,

Bussell, et al., 2006; Mueller, Moore, Doggett, & Tingstrom, 2000; Watson, 1996;

Brewer, 1992; Brewer & Miller, 1990; Collins & Batzie, 1970), racial conflict in graffiti

(Gyasi Obeng, 2000; Jones, 1991), gender or cultural characteristics in graffiti (Green,

2003; Norlander, Erixon, & Archer, 2000; Goikoetxea, 1998; Teixeira & Otta, 1998;

Schreer & Strichartz, 1997; Otta, Santana, Lafraia, et al., 1996; Otta,1993; McMenemy &

Cornish, 1993; Arluke, Kutakoff, & Levin, 1987; Olowu, 1983; Loewenstine, Ponticos,

& Paludi, 1982; Ahmed, 1981; Bates & Martin, 1980; Peretti, Carter, & McLinton, 1977;

Wales & Brewer, 1976; Jefferson, 1976; Farr & Gordon, 1975; Sechrest & Olson, 1971;

Sechrest & Flores, 1969; Landy & Steele, 1967), and graffiti’s relation to sexual issues

(Livia, 2002; Weinberg, 1994, 2006; Innala & Ernulf, 1992; Arluke, Kutakoff, & Levin,

1987). From a counter-cultural perspective, one study described official regulatory signs,

such as speed or directional markers, as “official graffiti” from the perspective of the

sociology of governance (Hermer & Hunt, 1996). Some discussion also has occurred with

regard to whether ancient rock carvings should be considered graffiti (e.g., Brongersma,

1990).
Concepts of Graffiti 8

Looking over these studies, certain themes emerge, demonstrating that, in the

psychological literature, graffiti primarily has been studied and written about as

problematic, gang-related, or criminal behaviour (See Table 1). The second-largest

discussion of graffiti in the psychological literature involves studying the semantics of the

graffiti, itself, and this research tends to focus on ideas of gender, racial, or cultural

concepts and conflicts represented in graffiti. The third largest group of studies have

focused on how graffitists try to create a public message about authority or social issues

felt privately by themselves. The fourth focuses on graffiti as a subculture or act related

to socialization or identity development (but not gangs). Finally, the fifth largest group of

studies focus on graffiti as a form of art or visual self-expression of ideas or emotions

(usually negative emotion, political, or protest-related ideas).

--- Table 1 about here ---

After examining the psychology literature, I would be hard-pressed to say that any

consensus exists whatsoever regarding the nature, cause, impact, or value of graffiti. As

such, the psychological research literature on graffiti, as a whole, can offer little structure

to public discussions of graffiti. Rather, psychological researchers studying graffiti must

try to trace a theoretically coherent path through the literature if they are to situate their

work within a particular theoretical approach or empirical history. When researchers do

this, a greater risk exists that researchers will come up with a path that tends to

theoretically cohere with their own values and views about the subject under study.

Interpreting the why and wherefore of graffiti involves assumptions and values

that even graffitists use to interpret or justify why the acts occur. If a researcher believes

that graffiti is a crime, that researcher likely will gravitate to that body of research that
Concepts of Graffiti 9

has set some precedent for conceptualizing graffiti in this manner. On the other hand, if a

researcher believes that graffiti is a form of art, then the researcher likely would gravitate

to the body of research that has conceptualized graffiti in that manner. Alternatively,

those who see graffiti as a developmental phenomenon will gravitate to those avenues of

discourse. Those who disagree with this conceptualization might be denying the role that

researcher beliefs and values play in research design and selection of methodology.

Academic disciplines, themselves, are cultures that share and promote particular kinds of

values. Psychologists tend to value the importance of social norms and prosocial

behaviour. Disciplines think differently, and some academics would strongly object to the

characterization of graffiti as being anything but pure art. Snyder (2010, p. 5), for

example, promotes the idea that, “In its purest form, graffiti is a democratic art form that

revels in the American Dream.” In fact, for some, arguing that graffiti is anything but a

form of valid protest and/or art garners comments that are nothing short of open hostility.

Why? Because graffiti arises out of our society’s understanding of private property,

governance, and personal expression, the topic cannot help but provoke a moral response

within people that results in often difficult and polemical responses.

Although some researchers might profess to being neutral about their views of

graffiti, many people are not indifferent to the existence or social impact of graffiti,

researchers included. On the contrary, heated debates can erupt over the concept of

graffiti between researchers and disciplines but also within the realm of public discourse,

as was evidenced in Saskatoon on May 15, 2004 at an open-forum discussion about

graffiti, called Up Against the Wall.

Concepts of Graffiti 10

Public Polemics about Graffiti: Up Against the Wall

Due to its public nature, graffiti is part of a public discourse that ranges across

many topics affecting individuals and communities, including crime, sense of belonging,

fear, aesthetics, and more. In 2004, Common Weal Community Arts Inc. and CARFAC

Saskatchewan (Canadian Artists Representation/le Front des artistes Canadiens)

sponsored Up Against the Wall, a public discussion about graffiti in the community,

including presentations by young graffitists speaking in favour of graffiti-style art who

clearly were talented, articulate, and powerful individuals..

Several themes or "sub-texts" were apparent at the meeting – one about graffiti-

style (urban) art, one about Saskatoon's problem with graffiti vandalism, and one about a

particular, legally commissioned mural in Saskatoon that had been painted over. The

different conversational subtexts at the meeting conflicted with each other, much in the

way that the research literature demonstrates conflicting perspectives and conclusions

about graffiti. The greatest polarity existed between people who saw graffiti exclusively

as a form of art and those who saw it exclusively as a crime. People who felt they had

been victimized by a graffitist were unprepared for the art-based perspectives being

presented and coldly unmoved by subsequent appeals to make legal acts of graffiti made

without consent on private property. Based on the response of many people attending Up

Against the Wall, graffiti has made a mark on our society and does create its victims.

Given the time, effort, cost, and sense of personal intrusion associated with having

personal property vandalized with graffiti, “victim” is an appropriate word for this

experience. Unfortunately, because so much tagging has occurred around Saskatoon,

Concepts of Graffiti 11

graffiti-style artists who do not commit vandalism might find legal, graffiti-style art

generally rejected in the community because of public anger at the property damage

graffiti vandals have perpetrated over the years.

The graffitists at the meeting presented themselves as role models for youth and

leaders in the community who were promoting positive ways for youth to find expression

of themselves through legal graffiti art and insisted that they, themselves, no longer

committed acts of illegal graffiti; however, one of the youths in the group later disclosed

to me that he actually still did some tagging. Another youth said that graffiti was better

than having “white walls.” Some graffiti proponents at Up Against the Wall even argued

that, if business owners do not want graffiti on their blank, white walls, then they should

pay a graffiti artist to paint a mural for them so that no tags recur, clever marketing that

could border on a protection scam. Business owners who want a blank, white wall are

entitled to have that blank, white wall. Just as much as some people feel they should have

the right to put their tag anywhere they want, others believe in the right not to have tags

on private property. However, as is noted later in this article, murals do not actually

prevent the occurrence of tagging.

Notwithstanding arguments that graffiti does not “damage” property (Edwards,

2009) but may, in fact, enhance public space, in the most rational of worlds upholding

rights of private property, uncommissioned graffiti on private property can only be

understood as an imposed change to the property that the owner did not want. Any other

definition eschews the matter of the value and right of private property ownership

altogether. Graffitists who believe that their activities improve the look of a property will

encounter no problems if they merely obtain the consent of the property owner prior to
Concepts of Graffiti 12

making their mark. However, consent changes the nature of the act and may, in fact, be

antithetical to its otherwise underground and clandestine nature (Powers, 2002).

Murals and Alternative Art Programs

An additional theme that came out of the 2004 Up Against the Wall meeting

focused on ways of reducing illegal graffiti through youth participation in municipal

mural and alternative art programs. Deterring or eliminating graffiti is a commonly

discussed theme in public discourse about graffiti, and the theme is also represented in

the professional literature. At Up Against the Wall, presenters from the art community in

Saskatoon promoted the idea that involvement in graffiti-based art and mural programs

would provide more positive socialization and skills development for at-risk teens.

Public mural programs and alternative art programs in Saskatoon have been met

with mixed opinion, and at Up Against the Wall, proponents of the programs were faced

with members of the public who refused to consider graffiti as an art form at all.

Obviously, definitions of art vary by standards, values, and taste: One person's art is

another person's bird-cage liner. Graffiti-style art is no different. In response to their

conceptualization of graffiti as universally negative, some people might globally oppose

graffiti-style art within a community because some graffiti contains frightening or

negative graphics, including scary or angry figures, skulls, or other socially negative

images. When people hear that a legal graffiti-style mural might be put up, fear or

dissention can be the response within a community because some people tend to associate

graffiti with images that are violent or hideous in nature, as some graffiti can be. In fact,

the more disquieting the images in graffiti, the more likely that people will demonstrate

lower levels of aesthetic appreciation of the art form (Giannini & Bonaiuto, 1999).
Concepts of Graffiti 13

Indeed, limited appreciation for the aesthetic value of some graffiti can result in a

kind of public knee-jerk reaction to the idea of a mural going up in a community, and

resulting dissent can occur along racial or other lines, increasing power struggles and

tensions within that community (Ferrell, 1993) and resulting in legal murals ultimately

being defaced or painted over, as happened in Saskatoon. Unfortunately, though,

graffitists have contributed to public anger about their craft. Public spaces, including

places like bridges, boulevards, and overpasses, belong to everyone. Public murals should

portray a variety of artistic styles and themes, not just aerosol art, and they should fit into,

as well as enhance, the milieu of a neighbourhood. Emphasis on aerosol art limits full

artistic expression within a community. In addition, graffitists who argue that they are

beautifying bridges by placing their "art" on it fail to recognize that architecture, itself, is

a form of art not requiring anything additional to enhance its beauty or aesthetic

legitimacy.

Participation in a mural project undoubtedly would be of positive value to youth

involved, who then take pride in their work and feel like they have contributed to their

community. Notwithstanding the positive aspects of these projects, young people

involved in art socialization programs could benefit from being exposed to a variety of art

styles, not just aerosol art or graffiti style. In addition, from the perspective of members

of the public opposed to graffiti, skill development in graffiti-style art is not helpful if it

encourages violation of private property rights, despite the artistic value of a piece.

If an art project has prosocial socialization goals, then participating youth might

be prevented from using their street tags in the art, so as not to perpetuate the fame or

notoriety they developed through use of their tag in illegal graffiti. Some will say that this
Concepts of Graffiti 14

is infringing on the artist's right to create the kind of art he or she wants. On the other

hand, the cycle of acceptance for graffiti vandalism also has to be broken and respect

fostered for the many artists in our community who do not create their art in illegal and

socially disruptive ways.

While strategically placed murals can reduce or eliminate tags and other forms of

graffiti in some public areas, Craw and colleagues (Craw, Leland, Bussell, Munday, &

Walsh, 2006) found that murals, themselves, do not eliminate these acts within a city. In

fact, the City of Winnipeg, which prides itself on its many murals, has continued to have

an ongoing and serious problem with illegal graffiti (Winnipeg Police Service, 2005).

Although Winnipeg has many murals, it continues to spend a considerable sum of public

monies repairing damage from graffiti. Murals can be an important part of graffiti-

prevention programming, but they certainly are not the only solutions to the problem of

illegal graffiti, and they do not eliminate tagging, in particular (Craw, Leland, Bussell,

Munday, & Walsh, 2006). However, they might proactively help some youth redirect

their energies to more prosocial ways of spending time and developing themselves as

individuals. Alternative art programs can be a very positive resource for resocializing

youth into prosocial use of their talents and energies. However, the same can also be said

for other youth-oriented programs (e.g., sports or dance) and organizations or prosocial

groups (e.g., 4-H, cadets, powwow drumming).

Funding of graffiti-style art programs must occur responsibly with the

understanding that the programs are there to promote the process of art and individual

self-development, not graffiti as a subculture (Snyder, 2009; Halsey & Young, 2006;

Rahn, 2002; Macdonald, 2001; Powers, 1999; Lasley, 1995; Brewer & Miller, 1990;
Concepts of Graffiti 15

Lachmann, 1988; Klofas & Cutshall, 1985). The graffiti subculture in Western societies

is not just about an art style. It contains some highly antisocial attitudes and behaviours.

While the youth at the 2004 Up Against the Wall meeting tried to argue that graffitists are

not necessarily involved in antisocial acts, the reality is that many are and that the graffiti

subculture, itself, promotes aspects of antisocial behaviour that can damage and frighten

communities, engender responses of fear and powerlessness within the citizenry, as well

as worsen social conditions and outcomes for citizens’ health (Moore & Shepherd, 2007;

Miles, 2006, 2008; Bowling, Barber, Morris, & Ebrahim, 2006; Cohen, Farley, & Mason,

2003; Alvi, Schwartz, DeKeserdy et al., 2001; Ross, Mirowsky, & Pribesh, 2001). There

is no point in limiting the discussion of graffiti to one of art, when it is, in fact, a social

phenomenon that has significant antisocial effects and outcomes.

For this kind of alternative art programming to be effective, peer-to-peer

mentoring that defines graffiti vandalism as an illegal activity would be a top priority. In

many youth activities, older or more experienced youth mentor younger youth, helping

them to become more prosocial. Given the hierarchical nature of the graffiti subculture,

older or more experienced youth are in a perfect position to act as peer mentors who

discourage graffiti vandalism, thereby taking on significant leadership roles in the

community and encouraging legal forms of art expression. The goal of many effective

alternative art and social programs for youth is to help youth develop prosocial attitudes

and skills for integrating into the community.

Alternative art programs with prosocial goals need to help graffitists find a voice

within society, not outside of and against it. This does not mean that feelings and ideas of

protest should be discouraged. On the contrary, public protest is not an antisocial act, at
Concepts of Graffiti 16

least not in a society that promotes principles of democracy and individual rights;

however, freedoms and rights come with responsibility. In actuality, one of the greatest

challenges of adolescence is learning how to balance freedom with responsibility –

learning that we are free to obey the law. We may protest public decisions and laws, and

we may even decide conscientiously to disobey laws; however, we also may be

sanctioned accordingly. Just forms of protest can bring about positive social change, as

we saw, for example, in the American civil rights movement. On the other hand, it is hard

to imagine how reading something like “muggaluva” all over my business wall will bring

about any positive change in Canadian law any time soon. Whatever “muggaluva” might

be protesting (I am making up this tag, so no reference to any real tagger is intended

here), as a member of the public, I really have no idea other than “muggaluva’s” perhaps

grandiose fantasy of hierarchical authority or fame on the street. If someone scrawled on

a psychology clinic wall something like “Psychologists out of Guantanamo!” (APA,

2008) or created a mural that actively protested use of psychiatry and psychology during

war or as agents of racial and cultural oppression, that might be considered a more

legitimate form of social protest, although, in reality, it still, in our society, would be

considered a form of vandalism. Due to our private property rights, painting the message

on a sign and walking it around in front of the clinic might be legal, but painting it on the

clinic is not.

Adults involved in strong, youth-oriented resocializing programs support the

artistic development of the youth but also need to support youths’ appropriate social

development in terms of being a responsible member of their culture and society. Adults

working with young people involved in graffiti subculture cannot be naive about the
Concepts of Graffiti 17

nature and structure of that subculture, or of the adults within the subculture who benefit

or profit from it. Graffiti cannot be conceptualized only as art when, in fact, it is an entire

way of life for some young people. A major problem with promoting street graffiti as art

occurs when people concomitantly ignore that graffiti is a distinct subculture having both

artistic and antisocial elements associated with it.

Mentoring youth properly would include developing their art skills or helping

them to access art schools, but it also would involve teaching youth the value of obeying

legitimate laws, such as not vandalising others' property. However, graffitists do not

always agree that they should assume leadership by speaking out against vandalism.

Graffiti as Artistic Subculture

One of the obvious realities of graffiti as an ostensible “art subculture” is that it

does not take criticism well, nor has it risen to a overriding level in which it can engage

in an objectified, non-threatening discussion of itself from a variety of perspectives,

notwithstanding the number of academic articles written about graffiti from both inside

and outside of the world of graffitists. Unfortunately, this makes some aspects of graffiti

subculture closer to using graffiti as a form of propaganda, not art, although, historically,

art has sometimes been used as a form of propaganda by oppressive regimes. As

opponents of freedom, oppressive regimes tend to have a high internal sense of

organization, conformity, belonging, and coherence, which applies to gang structures, as

well. Graffiti frequently is associated with gangs, not just with groups of youth or graffiti

crews (Othen-Price, 2006; Davis, 2003, 2008; Knox, 2001; Etter, 1999; Knox, 1996;

Anderson & Dyson, 1996; Lasley, 1995; Legendre, 1989; Brown, 1978) and, in that
Concepts of Graffiti 18

context, graffiti has more to do with territorial control and oppression than with freedom

of expression.

In addition, art does not usually have victims, and freedom of expression comes

with the responsibility to respect others’ rights. Despite arguments by some that all

graffiti should be legalized or that established artists do not have responsibility for

mentoring or showing leadership to younger artists, we live in a society that respects the

Rule of Law – nothing is above the law, including art, which is, of course, why we should

craft our laws so carefully. Adults working in youth-oriented resocializing programs need

to educate themselves about the real nature of graffiti subculture and stop trying to

separate graffiti from its affiliates in antisocial acting out and crime. If the adults working

with youth are going to teach them that laws with respect to property damage do not have

to be obeyed or are "oppressive," then the adults, in fact, will be supporting those youth

in cultivating antisocial attitudes.

Sometimes graffiti is identified as being a normal aspect of "youth culture" and

represents youths' need to express themselves in art. Rather than being "youth culture,"

itself, graffiti is part of a particular subculture of youth culture. Most youth are not illegal

graffitists and find more prosocial ways to express themselves or feel like they belong

somewhere in their society through involvement in musical groups, dance, sports teams,

or other prosocial peer groups.

While graffiti certainly is associated, albeit not exclusively, with youth below the

age of 25, graffiti does not represent youth in general, but a smaller sub-grouping of

youth, making it a subculture of youth culture in general. To say that graffiti is youth

culture is to misunderstand that youth culture contains many different subcultures. When
Concepts of Graffiti 19

graffitists represent themselves as proponents of youth culture, they misrepresent many

youth who are not part of graffiti subculture, or any of the particular styles associated

with it, such as the hip-hop style. Other youth subcultures include youth involved heavily

in music, sports, academics, computer technology, or other kinds of youth-related

activities. Some marketers, such as music distribution and clothing companies, have

begun to use graffiti-style art or fonts in their advertising to young people. For example,

the musical band Linkin Park has used graffiti-style imagery in its album artwork.

However, this does not mean that the majority of young people actively participate in the

graffiti subculture and engage in acts of graffiti, or even listen to Linkin Park.

As a generational or cohort issue, the possibility exists that youth who are heavily

exposed to graffiti in their communities and in marketing could experience a decrease in

moral opposition to graffiti. The same type of moral change has been observed in public

attitudes about drug use over the past 30 years in Canada. On the other hand, once young

people become private property owners, they might not feel so inclined to be accepting of

graffitist’s art and self-expression. Only time and further research will demonstrate which

outcome is the more probable. Alternatively, people who admire graffiti-style art might

push for “graffiti tolerance zones” (Edwards, 2009) in their communities where graffitists

may mark make without being charged. However, for many graffitists, these types of

compromises (e.g., throw-up walls, graffiti tolerance zones, seeking consent) take away

core elements of graffiti subculture, including thrill-seeking stimulation, territory

marking, defiant power, and other aspects of antisocial behavior.

Unfortunately, in public and professional discussions of graffiti, many people do

not make adequate distinctions between graffiti-style art, graffiti subculture, and the acts
Concepts of Graffiti 20

of vandalism called graffiti that are associated with graffiti subculture. As a result, many

discussions of graffiti that praise the art style end up effectively condoning property

damage. In public discussions of graffiti as an art form, rarely, if ever, is the point made

that graffiti subculture includes a variety of specifically antisocial motives, activities,

beliefs that are not often associated with other forms of art.

For example, Canada does not have a well-organized and antisocial subculture

devoted to writing musical compositions. However, we do have one devoted to graffiti.

Graffiti-style graphics can be beautiful and engaging; however, because of graffiti's close

relationship with antisocial behaviour, consideration should be given to the kinds of

activities that are being supported by public agencies sot that publicly funded

organizations supporting graffiti as art do not also support an antisocial graffiti

subculture, as well as the antisocial values, beliefs, and activities associated with it.

Graffiti subculture is often talked about as a way in which youth express

themselves, gain attention and recognition, or have a "voice" in society. For example,

consider the following excerpt from an article written by Allen Abel for Saturday Night

magazine about train vandals:

The vandal and his accomplices haunt train yards and paint elaborate graffiti on

the boxcars. They do this because it is illegal, because walls and alleys are

boring, because it unites them with hobo tradition. They do it because freight cars

move. 'Every artist dreams of having a show in Chicago,' he says. 'Well, I have a

show in Chicago every day, and in New York, and in all the small towns along the

tracks.'" (Retrieved from http://www.northbankfred.com/canada.html).

Concepts of Graffiti 21

Clearly, graffitists enjoy the attention they receive from the public exposure and

attention. However, while graffiti can be viewed as a way to self-express, more often it is

a way of purely advertising the self, dominating and competing with other graffitists, or

expressing feelings of isolation and alienation from society. As a result, graffiti is more

about ego and social alienation than it is about self-expression. This latter point is,

perhaps, the most important motivation for seeing graffiti as more than just art. Young

people who are expressing their feelings of alienation from society are at risk for

socialization and mental health problems, as well as involvement in antisocial group

behaviours. These are at-risk youth who need to be prosocially redirected to more

positive involvement with their communities. If alienated youth cannot find a prosocial

place of belonging, they will find an antisocial one, and antisocial groups might, in fact,

be much easier to join and maintain connection to than prosocial groups for many

youngsters.

Proponents of graffiti as art who would divorce the concept of graffiti-style art

from its context in an antisocial subculture decontextualize the art form from its active

life on the street. On a daily basis, the victims of this “art form” experience graffiti in

terms of its negative, antisocial impact on their lives. Although artists who produce legal,

graffiti-style art are not committing crimes, some have built their reputations as artists on

the illegal graffiti acts that initially helped them to cultivate their painting, drawing,

design, and lettering skills as well as their reputations on the street. While moving on to

legal art forms, in any style of art, can only be seen as a positive and prosocial step, some

artists like to use their graffiti identity or tag as part of their legal art, continuing their

illegally gotten name-recognition and capitalizing in terms of prestige on their past

Concepts of Graffiti 22

history of recognized vandalism. They are, in effect, profiting from the avails of past

crime.

In terms of garnering attention and a voice for themselves, due to feelings of

alienation, the graffiti subculture can be quite well-organized and social, which gives

alienated youth that sense of belonging they seek. In addition, graffiti vandals are not

necessarily socially isolated youth, and many urban graffitists in Canada are middle to

upper-middle class, rather than being financially impoverished. Many graffitists know

each other and feel that they belong to an active community of like-minded youth who

tag; this is, in fact, a hallmark of a subculture -- feeling like you "belong" to that group.

Moreover, not all graffiti is done individually. Although most graffiti is not done by

organized street gangs, some graffiti is done by graffiti "crews," young people acting in a

group to mark their tags on someone's else's property.

Graffitists recognize each other's work, with some even competing in terms of

who can make a better tag/piece or who can produce one that is more daring, large, or

more visible in the community. In addition, graffitists sometimes hold meet-ups to talk

about techniques or tips for tagging or other acts. Of course, they do not just call their

behavior "tagging," as graffitists tend to have a large and rich subculture vocabulary

devoted to identifying different kinds of graffiti, including tags, throw-ups, bombs, "just

fucking around," and more. A good representation of graffiti subculture can be seen on

the internet, where graffitists interact and discuss common interests relating to graffiti. A

recent trend is displaying graffiti done on nude girls (http://www.shriiimp.com), deeply

linking graffiti and pornography.

"Bombingscience.com" is a striking example of Canadian graffiti subculture on

Concepts of Graffiti 23

the internet. This site has been devoted to discussing all aspects of graffiti subculture,

including tips for technique, stealing, use of language, stories of tagging, clothing and

other items to purchase, as well as peer-to-peer socialization expectations. Out of the

many people who have joined this site and participate in the discussions, very few

advocate graffiti as a legal art-form; the site appears to advocate vandalism, or

“uncommissioned” graffiti, as well as theft, assaulting police officers, tagging homeless

people, evading legal authorities, and learning techniques for escaping police custody. In

other words, people involved in this particular subculture openly teach people how to

commit illegal acts and evade legal prosecution. They are part of an organized and

identifiable subculture which has, as one of its primary goals, destruction of property

with markings that they consider beautiful and that win them prestige within their own

ranks. If they advocated marking graffiti on people's walls, trains, or other property only

after obtaining the people's permission, their claims to legitimacy and artistic respect

might seem more credible.

Arguments to Legitimize Graffiti

Completely separating graffiti-style art from its modern links to street-based

vandalism and property damage is extremely difficult, as graffiti-style art finds its roots

in vandalism. While some try to legitimate graffiti by claiming it has roots in ancient cave

drawings, calling even those a form of graffiti, they forget to talk about the structural and

socio-cultural changes that have occurred since the time of cave-dwellers that make the

activity of drawing on walls problematic in many areas. These sociocultural changes

include laws that protect the rights of property owners. When asked about their views on

these rights, the graffitists at the 2004 Up Against the Wall meeting in Saskatoon gave
Concepts of Graffiti 24

various responses, ranging from "I don't care" to "this country was stolen anyway"

(spoken by a non-First Nations youth) essentially offering little to no respect for both the

freedoms and responsibilities people share when they live together in our society.

Despite claims to the contrary that are sometimes uttered in defence of graffiti,

nobody is making graffiti-style art illegal. For example, some artists like aerosol art;

actually, aerosol art has been around for a long time and was quite common in the 1970s.

In fact, I, myself, had an uncle who was an autobody worker and who, in his spare time,

produced highly colourful images using automotive paints sprayed onto art board.

However, legal aerosol artists do not form the majority of persons in graffiti subculture,

like good, legal drivers form the majority of people who drive. Rather, most people who

engage in graffiti do so illegitimately, performing illegal acts and supporting the illegal

graffiti-related acts of others. In addition, legitimate artists using aerosol paints use

protective gear to prevent themselves from respiratory damage or getting high off fumes

while painting.

Another common point of discussion that comes up in defence of graffiti,

particularly on graffiti-related websites is that graffiti is acceptable because young people

are forced to look at advertising from large corporations all the time on billboards, signs,

or in other locations. This point was also made by adults and youth at the Saskatoon

public discussion, with the added claim that, since we do not have a say in how structures

in our society look (such as how a city building would be designed or what advertising

we are compelled to look at on billboards) graffiti is a legitimate form of response to

oppression, capitalism, globalization of corporations, and not having a voice in society

about these issues. While in some parts of the world, graffiti is used as a form of protest
Concepts of Graffiti 25

to oppression, in other parts of the world, it is related to release from oppressive regimes.

For example, shortly after Saddam Hussein's ruling party was ousted from Baghdad,

much graffiti sprung up, some defacing symbols of the former regime, some expressing

other political statements. Not until the oppressiveness of the former regime ended did

graffiti made a significant mark on Baghdad, perhaps because people were freer and less

afraid. However, we have to remember that graffiti has different meanings in different

contexts, historical circumstances, and cultures. The use of graffiti in various parts of

Canada might not be directly comparable to significantly different social situations in

other nations. Oppression exists in Canada, and perhaps corporate advertising is a form of

oppression and colonization of public space, but doing more of the same may not be the

best form of protest, and billboards typically are not the target of graffitists anyway.

Indeed, in Canada, it is problematic to say that graffiti is an appropriate response

to legal advertising or city planning initiatives. The reality is that youth and adults alike

can have a say, and regularly do have a say, in social issues through socially appropriate

means, including voting, speaking at city council, formal protests, letter writing, or

various artistic activities, such as song writing, painting, drama, sit-ins or other legal

ways of speaking out. Both adults and youth who claim that they do not have a say in

Canadian society might be feeling alienated for any number of reasons, and it is this

alienation from society that contributes to acting out against Canadian society in

antisocial ways. If youth or adults do not like advertising, they should direct their

energies towards changing advertising laws rather than targeting private and public

property. If youth were using graffiti to protest advertising, we would see much more

graffiti on public billboards and other ads. Instead, we see graffiti on private and public
Concepts of Graffiti 26

property. Youth who claim that they are putting their own brand or logos out just like

companies do are forgetting that companies must follow laws about how, where, what,

and how much they can advertise. In addition, companies seek permissions and also pay

for their advertising spots for specific durations of time. Whereas companies legally

advertise their logos on their own property or in designated, legal places in our society,

graffiti vandals advertise wherever they want without anyone's permission.

As a result, programs for helping youth resocialize should not be run by adults

who, themselves, feel alienated, isolated, and resentful towards society and who are,

therefore, willing to see antisocial behaviour as a way of dealing with those feelings.

Antisocially driven, alienated adults are not in a position to offer youth prosocial methods

for public protest or involvement. Unhappiness with society does not give anyone the

right to infringe on other people's legitimate rights, such as the right to own property and

not have it damaged or trespassed. In addition, arguments in favour of graffiti as a form

of protest against the legitimacy of capitalism and advertising are promoting graffiti as a

form of art-as-protest. While the concept of art-as-protest is perfectly acceptable, it would

be unfortunate if youth attending alternative art programs were not exposed to the many

forms of art-as-protest that exist in legal forms. The concept of art-as-protest should not

transmogrify itself into the concept of vandalism-as-art.

In their desire to help young people turn their energies to prosocial activities,

adults also must be aware that helping young people to rehabilitate also means helping

to socialize themselves well within society. At the 2004 Up Against the Wall meeting in

Saskatoon, I heard a lot of discussion about graffiti as social anarchy, rebelling against

the larger society, and using art to make a statement about culture. This is not dissimilar
Concepts of Graffiti 27

to the kinds of movements North American society has seen before, such as with the

Hippy Movement, the earlier Dada-ists, or the recent Occupy movement. People have

every right to their philosophies, beliefs, art, and protest, but when they promote harm to

individuals, they becomes a destructive force rather than a form of positive protest.

Graffiti: Organized Big-Business

Although some graffitists argue that graffiti is a form of protest against

corporate advertising, ironically, the graffiti subculture, itself, is a form of albeit illegal

"advertising" and corporate strategizing. What youth at the meeting did not seem to

realize is that they, themselves, in participating in the graffiti subculture, are promoting a

large capitalistic enterprise focused on selling products for graffiti, including include

specialized pens, paint that does not run, and markers designed especially for tagging.

Some people even wear the corporate logos of product companies, such as Threadless

Naked and Angry, The Seventh Letter, Bombing Science, Upper Playground, XthreadZ,

Antiks Apparel, Rebel 8, NORML, Under Pressure, Stylefile, Graff Gear, Redeye, Tank

Theory, Tribal, One Serious Threat, Evidence, and Useless. Graffiti gear brand names

mean that graffiti is big business. Pens can cost more than 10 dollars each, and graffiti-

logo hoodies are often more than $75. Although some people might think that people

who graffiti are poor, oppressed, and disenfranchised, many graffitists spend considerable

sums of money on graffiti-related products. Youth who do not have ready access to these

kinds of funds might steal the products locally, which is actively encouraged on some

graffiti websites.

In terms of graffiti-product advertising, graffiti product companies readily and

specifically target market towards youth who want to commit acts of illegal graffiti.
Concepts of Graffiti 28

From the following three examples, you can see that these companies know that their

products will be used illegally:

0.6" tip, ink marker- What a great pocket marker! It has the same pump system as

the OTR.070, but it's more compact and more easy to hide... For those on the

run!"

(From http://bombingscience.com/cacatalog.htm?page=3&category=Markers)

On The Run pack! (4 markers)

In this pack you get a OTR.084 (Flowpen), a OTR.070 (Hard To Buff), a OTR.170

and a OTR.080 (Scrawlpen)... and you save 10% on the regular price!

(From http://bombingscience.com/cacatalog.htm?category=Special%2B

packages!)

Montana Xtra wide marker (30mm)

30mm tip. Paint marker- This marker is just the right size: not too huge, not too

small. Excellent control on the paint flow. For big writings that will everybody

will notice. Perfect for use on glass and metal. Really opaque paint. Price: $13.91

(From http://bombingscience.com/cacatalog.htm?category=Markers)

Although a person could argue that the phrase "on the run" just means "busy and in a

hurry," in the context of graffiti-subculture, it literally means "running from police," and

running is a frequent topic for discussion in the graffiti discussion forums.

Concepts of Graffiti 29

Graffiti products also are marketed for use on specific types of surfaces, so

graffitists will know what kinds of products to use where:

15mm tip. Paint marker- The Montana markers are among the best and this is

why they are the best selling markers on Bombing Science. The paint is really

opaque and the colors are great! The large tip offers a great control on lines (for

great handstyles!). Perfect for use on glass and metal.

(From http://bombingscience.com/cacatalog.htm?page=1&category=Markers)

All kinds of different graffiti products are available for a variety of surfaces. In fact, I was

surprised to see youth having discussions about how to get graffiti paint off their hands or

clothing and sharing tips on which cleaners or cleaning methods to use.

Graffiti is a well-developed industry. In addition to speciality markers, inks, and

spray paints, youth can purchase aerosol paint mask filters and respirators, variety tips for

spraying, stencils, metallic inks, replacement marker nibs, as well as magazines, books,

videos/dvds, clothing, and more. Unfortunately, sales are not necessarily going to legal

artists but to illegal graffitists. In addition, other industries are connected to graffiti,

including certain kinds of music, stickers, photographic collections of graffiti-style art,

and social event marketing.

Part of the graffiti subculture is to downplay or even deny this kind of

coordination, organization, and product availability as much as possible from authorities

and to plead lack of knowledge once caught. For example, on one graffiti forum, a person

made the following comment as advice about what to do if caught by the police:
Concepts of Graffiti 30

Play your shit down. Make em think they just arrested some new jack kid. The

answer to all questions is no. Evading the police, Use the shadows, Run like hell,

try to control your breathing and if all else fails hop as many fences as you can.

(From http://www.bombingscience.com/forum/)

Other advice on this forum included practicing how to jump fences, locating and buying

handcuff keys, assaulting police officers, pulling guns, or stealing computer equipment

and weapons from the police car. Discussion forums also exist for how to "rack" (steal)

tagging supplies from local hardware stores and, specifically, Walmarts. Graffitists give

advice on how to avoid particular types of security systems and how to steal from stores

with outdoor home-gardening sections. Graffiti sites also have regular newsletters, as

well as featured news about Canadian graffiti and online graffiti galleries from Canadian

cities, such as what you can see at www.visualorgasm.com.

Graffiti newsletters often feature "escape" stories about how young people evaded

authorities after putting up illegal graffiti. For example, "bombingscience's"

April 29th, 2004 newsletter contained one such chase story. Through graffiti newsletters,

graffitists are encouraged to share their "chase" stories with others by e-mailing them to

the newsletter contact address. In these stories, readers are shown not youth protesting

society or just expressing themselves; they're reading about the thrill of committing a

crime and then evading authorities, plain and simple. The newsletter stories tend to be

about the thrill of vandalism and not about the "art" or philosophical origins of graffiti. In

addition, the newsletters are a form of marketing because the youth often are using a

product sold by the people who run the website distributing the newsletter. More than just

art, graffiti is an antisocial subculture; therefore, those who would seek to socialize youth
Concepts of Graffiti 31

into graffiti-style art cannot responsibly ignore this aspect of the activity in which they

are involving youth.

The Problem of Ignoring Graffiti as an Antisocial Subculture

Ignoring the antisocial graffiti subculture has its social costs. One of the

presenters at the 2004 Up Against the Wall meeting in Saskatoon talked about a state he

called "graffiti rage," which is what some private citizens feel when their property is

vandalized with graffiti. The presenter pointed out that "graffiti rage" is what makes

ordinary people want to wait in the shadows "with a baseball bat until the next youth

comes along." Another example of graffiti rage occurred on Rawlco Radio’s (650

CKOM) Saskatoon-based program, The John Gormley Show. After the show aired an

interview with graffitists, one caller phoned in and challenged one of the graffitists to

give out his personal address so that the caller could come and put his own graffiti on the

youth’s home. After some tense moments, the graffitist did not give out his address, but,

clearly, a level of emotional turmoil was occurring on both sides of the conversation, with

the graffitist being caught between supporting graffiti as socially acceptable and not

really wanting what turned out to be his mother’s home graffitied; on the other hand, the

caller seemed bent on exacting revenge for graffiti vandalism he and his property had

been subjected to in the past.

Here's an example of what might be termed graffiti rage from an internet

discussion board about whether illegal graffiti is art:

MAJOR DAMN VANDALISM! At least 90%! 100% if it's on buildings inside a

city! I hate those bastards who ruin cities with that crap! Deport them all!

(From http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=99165)
Concepts of Graffiti 32

This is the kind of impact on people in the community that responsible proponents of

graffiti art cannot ignore if they want their legal, graffiti-style art to be supported

and taken seriously. It simply is not good enough to say that graffitists who want to do

legal art should be supported. A comprehensive strategy for preventing illegal graffiti

must occur in communities that has, as a primary goal, its overall reduction. Legal and

illegal graffiti must be distinguished from each other, and graffiti artists who want to

promote their art form must do their part to help eliminate illegal graffiti because it is a

crime.

Concluding Thoughts

This paper cannot address all issue relating to graffiti, but it is meant to provide a

broader understanding of the cultures of discourse about graffiti and the social

implications of promoting graffiti as an art form by decontextualizing it from its

association with an antisocial youth subculture. In Canadian society, the most powerful

models for not supporting illegal graffiti are the youth artists, themselves. If some youth

artists who enjoy aerosol art want to speak publicly in support of their art style, they

might also use their public role to discourage illegal graffiti. If they set themselves up as

spokespeople for art, then they would do well to have an interest in decreasing the

general public's tendency to see graffiti as vandalism by speaking out against illegal

graffiti. If some graffiti-style artists are willing to act as spokespeople against tagging,

then their offer should be taken seriously. Nothing is more powerful for youngsters than

positive peer role models willing to work with disenfranchised youth. Young people who

want to produce legal art need to understand that even artists have to obey some rules and

laws in society in order to produce their works. However, some proponents of graffiti are
Concepts of Graffiti 33

supporting their art as a form of antisocial anarchy, which is dangerous when it infringes

on the rights of others.

Fundamentally, trying to dramatically reduce or eliminate graffiti vandalism will

take a multi-focused approach, including rapid removal of illegal graffiti, mural funding,

alternative art program funding, other youth socialization initiatives, adult-supervised

peer mentoring, and continued penalties for people who create illegal graffiti. In addition,

continued funding of child and youth social and mental health programs and resources is

essential. Finally, public education about the benefits of removing graffiti is crucial.

Graffiti supplies are expensive, so graffitists will move on if their tags and pieces are

immediately painted over. It is a simple law of psychology: if a person behaves in a way

that results in something they like (tag stays up), they will behave that way again;

however, if their behavior results in something they do not like (tag is removed), they

will stop the behavior. In the case of tagging, most taggers probably will not stop tagging,

but they will move on to other locations, perhaps until they realize the futility of spending

all the time, money, and risk-taking behavior on an activity that is unsupported. Through

public education and adult-supervised peer mentoring initiatives, as well as other

suggested strategies, illegal graffiti might be reduced considerably. However, only a

coordinated effort in the community will achieve this kind of goal.

References

Ahmed, S. M. (1981). Graffiti of Canadian high school students. Psychological Reports,

49, 559-562.

Alvermann, D. E., Hagood, M. C., Heron-Hruby, A., Hughes, P., Williams, K. B., &
Concepts of Graffiti 34

Yoon, J. (2007). Telling themselves who they are: What one out-of-school time

study revealed about underachieving readers. Reading Psychology, 28, 31-50.

Alvi, S., Schwartz, M. D., DeKeserdy, W. S., & Maume, M. O. (2001). Women’s fear of

crime in Canadian public housing. Violence Against Women, 7, 638-66.

American Psychological Association. (2008). Report of the APA Presidential Advisory

Group on the implementation of the Petition Resolution. Washington, DC: APA.

Anderson, J. F., & Dyson, L. (1996). Community strategies to neutralize gang

proliferation. Journal of Gang Research, 3, 17-26.

Anderson, S. J., & Verplanck, W. S. (1983). When walls speak, what do they say? The

Psychological Record, 33, 341-359.

Aneshensel, C. S., & Sucoff, C. A. (1996). The neighborhood context of adolescent

mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37, 293-310.

Arluke, A., Kutakoff, L., & Levin, J. (1987). Are the times changing? An analysis of

gender differences in sexual graffiti. Sex Roles, 16, 1-7.

Austin, J. (2001). Taking the train: How graffiti art became an urban crisis in New York

City. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bates, J. A., & Martin, M. (1980). The thematic content of graffiti as a nonreactive

indicator of male and female attitudes. Journal of Sex Research, 16, 300-315.

Bourgeois, M., & Campagne, A. (1971). Tattooing and psychiatry. Annales Medico-

Psychologiques, 2, 391-413.

Bourns, W., & Wright, W. D. (2004). A study of church vulnerability to violence:

Implications for law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 151-157.

Brewer, D. D. (1992). Hip hop graffiti writers’ evaluations of strategies to control illegal
Concepts of Graffiti 35

graffiti. Human Organization, 51, 188-196.

Brewer, D. D., & Miller, M. L. (1990). Bombing and burning: The social organization

and values of Hip Hop graffiti writers and implications for policy. Deviant

Behavior, 11, 345-369.

Brotherton, C. (2006). Review of Cultivating minds – Identity as meaning-making

practice. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16, 81-82.

Brown, W. K. (1978). Graffiti, identity and the delinquent gang. International Journal of

Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 22, 46-48.

Buser, M. M., & Ferreira, F. (1980). Models and frequency and content of graffiti.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 582.

Castleman, C. (1982). Getting up: Subway graffiti in New York. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Chekroun, P. & Brauer, M. (2004). Social control and the bystander effect: The impact of

personal implication. L’Annee Psychologique, 104, 83-102.

Cohen, D., Farley, T., & Mason, K. (2003). Why is poverty unhealthy? Social and

physical mediators. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 1631-1641.

Collins, T. B., & Batzle, P. (1970). Method of increasing graffito responses. Perceptual

and Motor Skills, 31, 733-734.

Craw, P., Leland, L. S. Jr., Bussell, M. G., Munday, S. J., & Walsh K. (2006). The mural

as graffiti deterrence. Environment and Behavior, 38, 422-434.

Davis, K. (2003). Street gangs: Utilizing their roll calls for investigative and research

purposes. Journal of Gang Research, 10, 25-36.

Bowling, A., Barber, J., Morris, R., & Ebrahim, S. (2006). Do perceptions of
Concepts of Graffiti 36

neighbourhood environment influence health? Baseline findings from a British

survey of aging. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60, 476-483.

Brongersma, E. (1990). The Thera inscriptions: Ritual or slander? Journal of

Homosexuality, 20, 31-40.

Davis, K. (2008). Graffiti formats: Are they gangs or graffiti crews? Journal of Gang

Research, 15, 1-18.

Davis, K. (2003). Street gangs: Utilizing their roll calls for investigative and research

purposes. Journal of Gang Research, 10, 25-36.

Deiulio, A. M. (1973). Desk top graffiti: Scratching beneath the surface. Journal of

Research & Development in Education, 7, 100-104.

Duane-Gladden, S. (February 5, 2010). Friday Photography - Graffiti is Like Modern

Day Cave Painting. True to Words: A blog about language, communication and

writing. Retrieved November 22, 2012 from

http://truetowords.blogspot.ca/2010/02/friday-photography-graffiti-is-like.html).

Eglash, R., Bennett, A., O’Donnell, C., Jennings, S., & Cintorino, M. (2006). Culturally

situated design tools: Ethnocomputing from field site to classroom. American

Anthropologist, 108, 347-362.

Etter, G. W. Sr. (1999). Skinheads: Manifestations of the warrior culture of the new

urban tribes. Journal of Gang Research, 6, 9-21.

Farr, J. H., & Gordon, C. (1975). A partial replication of Kinsey’s graffiti study. Journal

of Sex Research, 11, 158-162.

Ferrell, J. (1993). Crimes of style: Urban graffiti and the politics of criminality. Boston,

MA: Northeastern University Press.

Concepts of Graffiti 37

Fuhrer, U. (2004). Cultivating minds: Identity as meaning-making practice. New York:

Routledge.

Giannini, A. M., & Bonaiuto, P. (1999). Contrasting aesthetic evaluations of “graffiti”

images as a function of incongruity intolerance levels. Empirical Studies of the

Arts, 17, 131-154.

Goikoetxea, E. (1998). Mural communication: Content analysis of graffiti at the

University. Revista de Psicologia Social, 13, 55-66.

Green, J. A. (2003). The writing on the stall: Gender and graffiti. Journal of Language

and Social Psychology, 22, 282-296.

Greeson, L. E. (1990). Bus stop graffiti: An index of media based cultural intrusion in a

Scandinavian city. Nordisk Psykologi, 42, 358-369.

Gyasi Obeng, S. (2000). Speaking the unspeakable: Discursive strategies to express

language attitudes in Legon (Ghana) graffiti. Research on Language and Social

Interaction, 33, 291-319.

Guthrie, R. D. (2006). The nature of paleolithic art. Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press.

Halsey, M., & Young, A. (2006). ‘Our desires are ungovernable’: Writing graffiti in

urban space. Theoretical Criminology, 10, 275-306.

Hanauer, D. I. (2004). Silence, voice and erasure: Psychological embodiment in graffiti at

the site of Prime Minister Ragin’s assassination. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 31,

29-35.

Hanes, M. J. (2006). Behind steel doors: Images from the walls of a county jail. Art

Therapy, 22, 44-48.

Concepts of Graffiti 38

Hermer, J., & Hunt, A. (1996). Official graffiti of the everyday. Law & Society Review,

30, 455-480.

Hume, C., Salmon, J., & Ball, K. (2007). Associations of children’s perceived

neighborhood environments with walking and physical activity. American

Journal of Health Promotion, 21, 201-207.

Innala, S. M., & Ernulf, K. E. (1992). Understanding male homosexual attraction.

Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7, 503-510.

Jefferson, R. S. (1976). Black graffiti: Image and implications. Black Scholar, 7, 11-19.

Johnson, C. (1955). Harold and the purple crayon. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Jones, E. P. (1991). The impact of economic, political, and social factors on recent overt

Black/White racial conflict in higher education in the United States. Journal of

Negro Education, 60, 524-537.

Jorgenson, D. O., & Lange, C. (1975). Graffiti content as an index of political interest.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 616-618.

Klingman, A., Shaley, R., & Pearlman, A. (2000). Graffiti: A creative means of youth

coping with collective trauma. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 27, 299-307.

Klingman, A., & Shaley, R. (2001). Graffiti: Voices of Israeli youth following the

assassination of the prime minister. Youth & Society, 32, 403-420.

Klofas, J. M., & Cutshall, C. R. (1985). The social archaeology of a juvenile facility:

Unobtrusive methods in the study of institutional cultures. Qualitative Sociology,

8, 368-387.

Knox, G. W. (2001). The Satan’s Disciples: A gang profile. Journal of Gang Research, 8,

57-76.
Concepts of Graffiti 39

Knox. G. W. (1996). Gang profile: The Black gangsters, aka “new breed.” Journal of

Gang Research, 3, 64-76.

Lachmann, R. (1988). Graffiti as career and ideology. American Journal of Sociology

94: 229–250.

Landy, E. E., & Steele, J. M. (1967). Graffiti as a function of building utilization.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 25, 711-712.

Lasley, J. R. (1995). New writing on the wall: Exploring the middle class writing

subculture. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 151-167.

Legendre, C. (1989). Le delire de la rue/ Street delirium. Psychologie Medicale, 21, 727-

731.

Livia, A. (2002). Public and clandestine: Gay men’s pseudonyms on the French Minitel.

Sexualities, 5, 201-217.

Loewenstine, H. V., Ponticos, G. D., & Paludi, M. A. (1982). Journal of Social

Psychology, 117, 307-308.

Lomas, H. D. (1980). Graffiti: Additional clinical observations. Psychoanalytic Review,

67, 139-142.

Lomas, H. D. (1976). Graffiti: Some clinical observations. Psychoanalytic Review, 63,

451-457.

Lomas, H. D. (1973). Graffiti: Some observations and speculations. Psychoanalytic

Review, 60, 71-89.

Lucca, N., & Pacheco, A. M. (1986). Children’s graffiti: Visual communication from a

developmental perspective. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147, 465-479.

Lucca Irizarry, N., & Pacheco Maldonado, A. M. (1983). The study of graffiti as a source
Concepts of Graffiti 40

for research on developmental social psychology: A review of the literature.

Perspectivas en Psicologia, 2, 57-82.

Luzzatto, D., & Jacobson, Y. (2001). Youth graffiti as an existential coping device: The

case of Rabin’s assissination. Journal of Youth Studies, 4, 351-365.

Lynn, N., & Lea, S. J. (2005). Through the looking glass: Considering the challenges

visual methodologies raise for qualitative research. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 2, 213-225.

Macdonald, N. (2001). The graffiti subculture: Youth, masculinity and identity in London

and New York. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Marie, A. (1929). Art and madness. Revue Scientifique, 67, 395-398.

Maybin, J., & Moss, G. (1993). Talk about texts: Reading as a social event. Journal of

Research in Reading, 16, 138-147.

McCormick, J. (2003). “Drag me to the asylum”: Disguising and asserting identities in an

urban school. The Urban Review, 35, 111-128.

McMenemy, P., & Cornish, I. M. (1993). Gender differences in the judged acceptability

of graffiti. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 622.

Miles, R. (2008). Neighborhood disorder, perceived safety, and readiness to encourage

use of local playgrounds. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34, 275-281.

Miles, R. (2006). Neighborhood disorder and smoking: Findings of a European urban

survey. Social Science & Medicine, 63, 2464-2475.

Miller, I. L. (2002). Aerosol kingdom: Subway painters of New York City. Jackson:

University Press of Mississippi.

Morrison, D. R., Young, D. L., & Young, J. F. (1998). From “Kilroy is here” to the
Concepts of Graffiti 41

Jonesboro incident: A logical progression? Journal of Instructional Psychology,

25, 250-255.

Mueller, M. M., Moore, J. W., Doggett, R. A., & Tingstrom, D. H. (2000). The

effectiveness of contingency-specific and contingency-nonspecific prompts in

controlling bathroom graffiti. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 89-92.

Noonan, E. (2006). Editorial. Psychodynamic Practice: Individuals, Groups and

Organisations, 12, 1-4.

Norlander, T., Erixon, A., & Archer, T. (2000). Pychological androgyny and creativity:

Dynamics of gender-role and personality trait. Social Behavior and Personality,

28, 423-435.

Norlander, T., Nordmarker, A., & Archer, T. (1998). Effects of alcohol and frustration on

experimental graffiti. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 29, 201-207.

Olowu, A. A. (1983). Graffiti here and there. Psychological Reports, 52, 986.

Othen-Price, L. (2006). Making their mark: A psychodynamic view of adolescent graffiti

writing. Psychodynamic Practice: Individuals, Groups and Organisations, 12, 5-

17.

Otta, E. (1993). Graffiti in the 1990s: A study of inscriptions on restroom walls. The

Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 589-590.

Otta, E., Santana, P. R., Lafraia, L. M., Hoshino, R. L., Teixeira, R. P., & Vallochi, S. L.

(1996). Musa latrinalis: gender differences in restroom graffiti. Psychological

Reports, 78, 871-880.

Pennebaker, J. W., & Sanders, D. Y. (1976). American graffiti: Effects of authority and

reactance arousal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 264-267.

Concepts of Graffiti 42

Peretti, P. O., Carter, R., & McLinton, B. (1977). Graffiti and adolescent personality.

Peters, T. C. (1990). Student graffiti and social class: Clues for counselors. School

Counselor, 38. 123-132.

Powers, S. (1999). The art of getting over: Graffiti at the millennium. New York: St

Martin’s Press.

Rahn, J. (2002). Painting without permission: Hip-hop graffiti subculture. Westport, CT:

Bergin and Garvey.

Rhyne, L. D., & Ullmann, L. P. (1972). Graffiti: A nonreactive measure? The

Psychological Record, 22, 255-258.

Ritter, D., & Eslea, M. (2005). Hot sauce, toy guns, and graffiti: A critical account of

current laboratory aggression paradigms. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 407-419.

Roscoe, B., & Evans, J. A. (1986). Dek top graffiti. College Student Journal, 20, 221-

224.

Ross, C. E., & Jang, S. J. (2000). Neighborhood disorder, fear, and mistrust: The

buffering role of social ties with neighbors. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 28, 401-420.

Ross, C. E., Mirowsky, J., & Pribesh, S. (2001). Powerlessness and the amplification of

threat: Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and mistrust. American Sociological

Review, 66, 568-591.

Ruback, R. B., & Patnaik, R. (1989). Crowding, perceived control, and the destruction of

property. Psychological Studies, 34, 1-14.

Scheibel, D. (1994). Graffiti and “film school” culture: Displaying alienation.

Communication Monographs, 61, 1-18.

Concepts of Graffiti 43

Schreer, G. E., & Strichartz, J. M. (1997). Private restroom graffiti: An analysis of

controversial social issues on two college campuses. Psychological Reports, 81,

1067-1074.

Schwartz, M. J., & Dovidio, J. F. (1984). Reading between the lines: Personality

correlates of graffiti writing. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, 395-398.

Sechrest, L., & Belew, J. (1983). Nonreactive measures of social attitudes. Applied Social

Psychology Annual, 4, 23-63.

Sechrest, L., & Flores, L. (1969). Homosexuality in the Philippines and the United States:

The handwriting on the wall. Journal of Social Psychology, 79, 3-12.

Sechrest, L., & Olson, A. K. (1971). Graffiti in four types of institutions of higher

education. Journal of Sex Research, 7, 62-71.

Seva, A. (2003). Review of surviving stalking. European Journal of Psychiatry, 17, np.

Solomon, H., & Yager, H. (1975). Authoritarianism and graffiti. The Journal of Social

Psychology, 97, 149-150.

Snyder, G. J. (2009). Graffiti lives: Beyond the ‘tag’ in New York’s urban underground.

New York: New York University Press.

Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1987). A hierarchy of sexual harassment. Journal of

Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 121, 599-605.

Teixeira, R. P., & Otta, E., (1998). Restroom graffiti: A study of gender differences.

Estudos de Psicologia, 3, 229-250.

Uchiyama, A., Inokuchi, Y., & Oikawa, S. (1996). Experiences in daily life and problem

behavior among jnior high school students: An analysis by city size. Reports of

the National Research Institute of Police Science, 37, 60-68.

Concepts of Graffiti 44

Una Juarez, O., & Fernandez Franco, L. (1983). Youth and the significance of city space.

De Juventud: Revista de Estudios e Investigaciones 10, 105-118.

Viqueira Hinojosa, A. (1982). Proselytizing of youth by fanatic groups and sects. De

Juventud: Revista de Estudios e Investigaciones, 5, 167-185.

Wales, E., & Brewer, B. (1976). Graffiti in the 1970’s. The Journal of Social Psychology,

99, 115-123.

Watson, T. S. (1996). A prompt plus delayed contingency procedure for reducing

bathroom graffiti. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 121-124.

Webb, N., (1985). Borderline creativity. Interchange, 16, 94-102.

Weinberg, T. S. (2006). Sadomasochism and the social sciences: A Review of the

sociological and social psychological literature. Journal of Homosexuality, 50, 17-

40.

Weinberg, T. S. (1994). Research in sadomasochism: A review of sociological and social

psychological literature. Annual Review of Sex Research, 5, 257-277.

Winnipeg Police Service (2005). Crime prevention handbook. Winnipeg: Winnipeg

Police Service.
 Concepts of Graffiti 45

TABLE 1

Research Theme Number of Studies Identified (N=118)*

Graffiti as problematic, gang-related, or 28
criminal behaviour
Gender, racial, or cultural characteristics 22
and conflicts in graffiti
Creating a public message about authority 14
or social issues felt privately with graffiti
Graffiti as a subculture or act related to 13
socialization or identity development (not
gangs)
Graffiti as a form of art or visual self- 10
expression of ideas or emotions (usually
negative emotion, political statements, or
protest-related ideas)
The validity or usefulness of graffiti as an 9
object of research
Graffiti as an indicator of physical disorder 8
and/or perceived social problems
Graffiti as an indicator of alcohol effect, 5
cigarette use, or physical activity
Graffiti as art 3
Graffiti as existential coping or 3
spontaneous memorization in response to
national loss
Graffiti as a social symptom of parental 1
neglect
Regulatory signs as “official graffiti” 1
Ancient rock carvings as possible graffiti 1
Table 1 – Themes in psychological research studies about graffiti.
*Studies were examined up to and including the mid-2007 publication year. One study was a review of a
monograph on identity and graffiti; therefore, although 120 studies were identified, the book-review article
was not included as an original research article about graffiti and, therefore, is not counted in this table.

View publication stats