Graffiti Art

A city-wide effort to eliminate graffiti is facing opposition from artists who feel it constricts a legitimate form of art.

Andrew Lane, an aspiring artist attending OCAD, the Ontario College of Art & Design, says the program is not in the best interest of the community.

“I don’t think David Miller really cares about the culture or significance of Graffiti,” Lane said. “He cares about economic and urban expansion.”

The city of Toronto launched the Graffiti Eradication program in 2000 to eliminate graffiti in the city and in suburban areas. In 2005, the crackdown on graffiti intensified when a by-law prohibiting all graffiti was passed.

The by-law, number 123 under the Toronto Municipal Code, made it so that no graffiti was permitted in the city, whether on public or private property. But to artists such as Lane, what the city sees as urban blight, is really urban art.

“The graffiti scene in Toronto has a vibrant history,” Lane said. “It has been very influential globally, in places like N.Y.C and Berlin.”

Lane says part of the reason graffiti is misunderstood is due to the way the city handles it.

In Toronto, graffiti is removed within 72 hours, or 24 hours if it contains discriminatory remarks or anything gang related.

According to Lane, this results in sloppy, mindless graffiti known as “tags” with no real artistic merit.

“People here aren’t exposed to proper graffiti because there is no canvas for it,” Lane said. “All they see are shitty tags with no substance, because who is gonna dedicate themselves to a piece that will be gone in a few days?”

The city says some of its reasons for launching the project are that graffiti makes neighbourhoods less desirable, encourages more vandalism and crime, and makes it seem like rules can be broken without consequence.

However, Lane says these issues can be avoided with mutual co-operation between graffiti artists and the city.

He says if there was regulation of graffiti in designated, private properties, it would give graffiti artists a much needed outlet and a place to develop their art.

“The law says that ‘art murals’ are allowed but graffiti is not,” Lane said. “But whose place is it to define what’s art and what’s not?”

To some, this question is more easily answered than for others.

The issue came up again recently in a Sept. 10, 2008 issue of the Toronto Star when a group was divided over whether city council should be allowed to vote on a selection of public art murals for a Toronto condo project.

Councillor Howard Moscoe was one of the leading advocates of the decision for the city to stay out of the voting process.

“The minute public art becomes politicized, it becomes banal,” Moscoe said. “If you squeeze it through the political process, you get tripe.”

The Metro Place Project, with a budget of $500,000 to fund public art, is judged by a panel consisting of the developer, landscape architect and a number of artists.

Some artists, such as Lane, think powerful corporate interests motivate the campaign.

“Look around you, you can’t go anywhere in Toronto without being bombarded by advertisements,” Lane said. “Billboards, condos, real estate, that’s all this city cares about”.

To other artists, such as Susie Park, another student attending OCAD, the city’s decision to fund public art for a condo project reflects where their priorities are.

“I don’t find it surprising that they did that,” Park said. “Condos make a lot of money; it’s good for the city. Graffiti doesn’t do that.”

Some like Coun. Moscoe, feel art is not prone to consensus and that an artist needs complete freedom of expression.

Not surprisingly, many artists would agree.

“You can’t tell an artist where and when to draw or paint,” said Susie. “That sort of makes it feel like the artist is no longer creating art for themselves, but for someone else”.

Park feels that art cannot be sculpted by the orders of a politician, especially in the case of graffiti.

“The whole point of graffiti is to give life to parts of the city that are dead,” Park said. “The sketchy alley, the abandoned staircase, the places people avoid.”

Park feels graffiti is made to create beauty in places where beauty has been forsaken. She says by only allowing graffiti in certain, designated areas, it defeats the purpose.

For Andrew Lane, the city only allows certain art murals to promote gentrification, and raise property values.

He feels the city is not concerned with fostering the growth of this small art subculture.

“If you look at the art murals in Toronto, most of it is really contrived, like peace signs, or people holding hands,” Lane said. “To Miller, that is art, but the moment someone makes a political piece about poverty or police, it’s graffiti.”

--End--