 |
| "UCL is not a business", written in white chalk (image by R Peters) |
Is this mere vandalism and mindless destruction of property?
Or is it one of the ways freedom of expression materializes?
Is the graffiti damaging to the public face of UCL or a testimony to UCL’s lively and democratic environment?
Is the graffiti disfiguring UCL campus or just another layer of its biography?
Or is it one of the ways freedom of expression materializes?
Is the graffiti damaging to the public face of UCL or a testimony to UCL’s lively and democratic environment?
Is the graffiti disfiguring UCL campus or just another layer of its biography?
 |
| "R.I.P. EDUCATION", written in yellow chalk (image by R Peters) |
What do you think Jeremy Bentham would say?
 |
| "JB is not happy" written in pink chalk (image by R Peters) |
 |
| "What would Jeremy say?", written in pink chalk (image by R Peters) |
Is graffiti damage?
If you look at the graffiti as damage, how should we respond?
Should we support those who want to clean the graffiti off?
Should we argue the interventions will disappear on their own?
Should we consult different groups of stakeholders such as UCL staff and students before taking any action?
If you look at the graffiti as damage, how should we respond?
Should we support those who want to clean the graffiti off?
Should we argue the interventions will disappear on their own?
Should we consult different groups of stakeholders such as UCL staff and students before taking any action?
I don't know what JB would say about the graffiti and he does not seems willing to make any comments from his glass box, but I was both amused to read the Provost's outraged reaction to the "disfigurement" of UCL, and secretly pleased that the students had the consideration to use chalk and not spray paint, so I suppose I am not being entirely consistent here...
ReplyDeleteIn any case, graffiti is a much vilified form of expression, but in this context (and please, don't forget the context!) it is in accordance with the spirit of the university, so no, I don't think it detracts from UCL's image, rather it shows the students are thinking critically and putting their thoughts into action, an interesting snipet of internal cultural and social history if you like. Are we not supposed to be, and I quote from UCL's website: "a modern, outward-looking institution, committed to engaging with the major issues of our times. (...) a radically different university, (...). That radical tradition remains alive today."?
Writing on walls is not that radical, it goes back a long time. In this case, it is not simply protest, but a way of reaching the broader audience. I think all this needs to be considered when deciding if it is "defacement" or not, and therefore what to do with it: let's look at the context, let's look at the values in it, and let's establish whether it is meaningful or not for the whole of UCL's community. College should ask everyone whether they want it to stay or not. And if the answer were to remove it, that in itself would be another interesting snipet to add to this layer of UCL's biography...
Ah, I don’t agree with you on that Carmen. Now, since the graffiti is made with chalk and not with paint, I would not actually go so far as to call it ‘mindless destruction of property’ (no lasting damage has been done), but I would certainly call it vandalism. Mind you, the UK government would probably call it vandalism too!
ReplyDelete“The Keep Britain Tidy campaign, run by the charity Encams, has drafted a statement signed by 122 MPs, including the prime minister, Tony Blair. It says: "Graffiti is not art, it's crime. On behalf of my constituents, I will do all I can to rid our community of this problem." “
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/aug/02/society.politics
I can even understand the Provost’s reaction at the ‘disfigurement’ of UCL, as in my eyes it certainly ‘stains’ the reputation of UCL if UCL were to keep the graffiti. Perhaps the situation would be different if all the student protests had thus far run without incidents, but in the light of recent developments concerning student violence (damaging government buildings, acts of violence, destruction of property, attacking the car with Prince Charles and Camilla while chanting “Off with their heads!”) the graffiti could be viewed as just a part of those outburst.
It’s because of this association that I think we should vote for having the graffiti removed as a way of clearly saying that we disagree with these acts of violence committed by students and want to distance ourselves from them. “Thinking critically and putting thoughts into action” certainly have their merits, but not if they lead to breaking the law. And was there really no other way to show the public our outrage at the increase of tuition fees? I saw a few banners hanging there which seemed to work quite effectively at getting the message across.
The majority of the people would furthermore not actually associate graffiti with ‘critical thinking’ or a modern way of reaching out to the public. Now, I come from a sort of secluded village, had a rather conservative upbringing, and have not been exposed to a lot of graffiti throughout my life, so perhaps I would have a different opinion if I had been brought up in a city and exposed to it more regularly, but I did not feel comfortable when walking at the Main Quad. It felt like I had entered some kind of Getto area and not a learning institution.
And on a more personal note. Why must all conservation terms be so humanized? I don’t like the term ‘biography’, as it conjures up an image of the UCL building saying to another building in the Historical Building Heaven (where surely all historical buildings go after they’re demolished): “And guess what they did then? They tarnished my surface with chalk and wrote battle cries all over me! How’s that for respect?”
Iris, I don't think you can equate chalk graffiti as those of UCL with any graffiti. Have you ever seen chalk graffiti anywhere around cities? I have personally never have and unlike you I grew up in different cities outside the UK in a country where graffiti are EVERYWHERE. I was therefore rather pleasantly surprised at the students' decision to 'respect' the buildings using chalk while, at the same time, make such a strong statement as effacing TEMPORARILY those same buildings.
ReplyDeleteLast but not least, putting these chalk graffiti in the same bag as the violence of last Thursday and the attack on the royal car stinks of dangerous demagogy: please let us not go there.
I find that there is something ironic about a political slogan which is actually written in pink chalk! It looks playful, and makes a big difference compared to big, dark spray paint letters. I don’t know about keeping them. Removing the graffiti now would be a political act against the student protests. On the other hand they are not intended to be permanent, and they will probably fade soon anyway. Maybe they should ask people, as Carmen suggested!
ReplyDeleteIn general, I think graffiti are interesting, maybe because they often express things that people don’t feel that they can express otherwise. The slogan “Blank walls, mute people”, may be a little exaggerated in the western world in the era of internet. But I still feel that a city with blank walls is weird! Of course graffiti can be very ugly, and one thing I’ll never understand is what brings someone to tag one’s name on every corner of town! But graffiti can certainly be art as well. Tony Blair should know more about Basquiat, Banksy or Blu. Berlin has two famous art galleries for graffiti, the East Side Gallery, which is a part of the wall, and the Kunsthaus Tacheles.
I guess appreciation of graffiti is just a matter of personal taste, but as conservators we know better than to judge only on an aesthetic basis. What do you think about this wall in Bologna:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22783320@N05/2267501544/
It’s certainly not pretty, but it was covered with a sheet of glass and conserved for more than 30 years. The bullets were shot in 1977 by the police against students, killing one demonstrator. You can’t see them in the photo because of the glass, but the friends of Francesco scratched many graffiti on the wall to remember him. The wall is also the memory of a period of Italian history in which the state sent tanks and sharpshooters on every roof to deal with young people’s protests.
This depressing example was just to say that many graffiti are signs of events, thoughts and people which are part of the history of a country, of a community, or of a university.
Given my profession, I am obviously not in favour of vandalism or the destruction of cultural property. Therefore, when I heard the UCL campus had been ‘graffited’ I took a walk around campus to look at and assess the damage imparted by our students.
ReplyDeleteI may have missed something but all the graffiti I saw was done in chalk, not a single one was done in any nasty material that would be difficult to remove (but i will add a point about the Slade later). My conclusion was quite obvious: our students were actually really thoughtful about how they expressed their ideas and concerns about education on the walls of an educational institution that prides itself for being democratic, inclusive and radically different (good quote, Carmen!).
However, this does not end the debate! I am very interested in how the socio-political context informs our perceptions of damage and how that feeds into the conservation decision-making process and the way we intervene in the ‘damaged’ object or building, in this case.
I will add some more images to illustrate my thoughts and ask for your opinion! Thanks for all the comments this far, really informative and interesting! Not to mention relevant!
As a student (albeit one who did not participate in this action), I would call this "chalking" and not "graffiti". Chalking, unlike graffiti, is often playful, rarely harmful, and will /wash off in the next big rain/. The point was to overload the university community with students' feelings and opinions, not to make a mark or destroy property. At many other universities, chalking is done frequently to advertise events, express opinions, and get the message out. It is not mean as an act of vandalism and should not be treated as such. Graffiti, with paint or spray paint (or from the original Italian sgraffito, 'scratch') is permanent, incredibly difficult to remove, and generally expresses different feelings entirely. Seriously, when's the last time you saw graffiti on a highway overpass stating how much we value education? I'm guessing never.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. The end of Stacy's post (sorry to single you out. Others have said similar things, this is just a very clearly worded example) worries me slightly:
ReplyDelete"Graffiti...generally expresses different feelings entirely. Seriously, when's the last time you saw graffiti on a highway overpass stating how much we value education?"
The spray paint/chalk distinction is a very fair one. But surely we can't distinguish between vandalism and legitimate freedom of expression on the basis of whether or not we agree with the sentiments expressed. Who would decide what sentiments were legitimate? Suppose I went out and chalked up "It is possible that tertiary education is not a right". Would that be a part of UCL's biography or not?
Basically, I think freedom of speech enters into this. If we conserve or at least don't remove graffiti/chalkings on the grounds that they constitute freedom of expression and a legitimate output of UCL's members, surely we have to extend the same right to views we don't agree with. Potentially even to offensive views (though I can't imagine UCL students possessing many.)
In some ways, this strikes me as a microcosmic version of the wider debate on protest violence. (I'm not saying they're associated, of course, but the terms of debate are the same.) I am concerned by the view that tolerates student protest violence on the basis that it is somehow qualitatively different from violence perpetrated by, say, the EDL.
Generally, I'd be in favour of letting the rain wash it off, since no harm has actually been done to anyone. But then I'd defend far less palatable sentiments on the same basis, which I don't think others would necessarily.
I don't generally like to see spray painted tags and the like, it just doesn't look very nice and doesn't exactly show much respect for the person who's property is sprayed. Got to ask, whether you'd like to wake up in the morning and find your fence or wall in that kind of state. However, theres the whole debate of what is deemed as ok and what is not. We have Banksy for example, who's work is deemed more on the side of art, and at least people actually admire it which can't be said of some foul worded slogan someone sprayed thinking it would make them look big. Therefore, I do have a different opinion over the chalkings. As a student I can relate to them, and I do feel they are more of a freedom of expression. They can't be classed as mindless markings when they each make a point for a cause that many others like themselves support. Walking through the campus, I don't get the same feeling of 'God look at this mess!' that can be got from graffiti produced by 'bored' kids hanging out in a bus shelter at night (doing that, no wonder their bored!). Spray painted graffiti is more understandable as a major grievance as it takes a lot of time, effort and materials to get it off. In comparison, the students made a point of using chalk. Chalk won't leave long term damage like other mediums, and is easily weathered. What do school children during break time do? Using chalk on their playgrounds doesn't make them vandals as there not damaging anything. Obviously I don't think its immediately ok to send out the message that its now fine to chalk your neighbour's wall or something; then again, if people are going to do graffiti, chalk would be favoured over permanent mediums. Anyway, I digress.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I have been so excited about what the students have been doing here, I can't walk into the quad without smiling, so I am biased.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of you that had it been paint it would be much more distressing, but it's just chalk, meant to make a statement but not cause serious damage. As the students were speaking about an issue that will not only affect UCL, but the entire education system, it is now part of the history of the fight for free education.
I don't see it as a stain or vandalism, I agree with Carmen, the students are only writing the ideals (or what were the ideals) of the college and the old education system in the UK.
Obviously it was not meant to last and I think it should only be conserved through documentation/photos/videos and not actually on the surface of the buildings. It should be allowed to fade with time.
In my hometown there is a historic building that is condemned and was planned to be destroyed until a few students painted murals on it and wrote poetry all over it, the city council could not destroy it because it had become a work of art. Although it could be argued that the building was vandalized, the paint/marker saved it. It adds to the "biography" of the building and is part of our city history. When I saw the quad I thought similarly that students had written over an educational building to try to save education.
I will add a couple of comments I received by email:
ReplyDelete1- J
"Nice work. Though.. it's a pain to log in to comment on blogs
See Schof's take on this
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba108/ontheweb.shtml
j"
See also "Graffiti archaeology" on http://otherthings.com/grafarc/about.html
http://www.flickr.com/groups/grafarc
(both related with J's comment above)
2. From Mary Gee
"Happy with graffiti, even the ugly stuff, and really wish there was some way of incorporating it as an acceptable part of the streetscape. And not just in designated areas. Get quite pissed off when someone tags something I have newly cleaned/painted but still, I think it is fair enough. Actually kind of makes me laugh when someone has gone to lots of trouble to create a lovely plain painted wall and then the next minute someone comes along and puts a stupid tag on it - if you got to be anti-social (there is, afterall, no point pretending everything is sweetness and light all the time) then this is the way to do it, not mugging or making a drunken spectacle of yourself, or plagueing your neighbours with loud music).
So much ugly stuff is put in front of us everyday by people who have permission to do so: councils/government, big business and the people they employ to do their advertising - graffiti is unacceptable mostly because it isn't sanctioned by these authorities. Noises might be made if a ruddy big advertising billboard was stuck on UCL's buildings but, at the end of the day, if the Provost and UCL's accountants wanted it we would have it whether we approve or not.
By the way, I am not part of the Occupation, haven't been on any of the demos, too old and weary to get particularly bothered about politics (it's ALL bs), and have never tagged anything in my life, quite a boring middle-class housewifey kind of type really. But happy with the graffiti - if we have to have all the other visual pollution why not the tags also? Everyone to get on board with the graffiti I say, especially in the most unsuitable of places such as UCL's historic Quad. Would probably be the first one out there to clean it off again.
I know these views probably represent an impossible paradox to most people but would really like to see more capacity, in humans, society generally, for dealing with antagonistic positions."
Remember the above are not MY comments! Just posted them for other people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI must disagree with blueporcupine. My point is that chalking is /not/ graffiti. Would we even be having this conversation if the protesting students had put up posters, banners, or flyers? (Chalking is even better for the environment - no paper waste!) This case includes the idea of freedom of speech, but puts in into a context of appropriateness. The issue is that universities have done something wrong, and students use the campus as the vehicle for expressing protest. I really don't mean to offend anyone by this comparison, but would Martin Luther's theses have made an impact if he nailed them to a market stall rather than a church door? The point is for the right people to get the message, and do it in a way that draws attention but is not harmful.
ReplyDeleteI think this debate is going slightly off-track. This space is not here to publicize political views but to discuss how damage is perceived and how this influences conservation-decision making.
ReplyDeletePlease try to keep that in mind. I do agree these factors are intertwined but try not to get carried away. Thank you.
Grafittis are meant to appear on beautiful buildings. They are meant to deteriorate their look and shock, to be better seen and have an impact.
ReplyDeleteThen, they will be cleaned. Because a beautiful building covered in grafitty turns ugly, or just dirty, and the more messages, the more they loose their impact. So better a nasty grafitty on a clean beautiful building. It keeps the place nice and the message powerful.
I just wanted to add that photographng them is a great idea, as they express the feeling of the moment, but will disappear. Grafitties are a mode of expression for those who cannot reach a larger audience but still want to reach them.
ReplyDeleteWritting on the walls of UCl, deteriorating its appearance is also a way of reavealing what is seen as the ugliness inside.
More grafitties, please!
An alternative future.
ReplyDeleteYear 2050. The financial crisis ended in a different way than many people thought. After the failure of the strict economic measures, people and governments were convinced that the future belongs to education and especially to the humanities field. Huge amounts of money were invested in education purposes, in order to ensure free and equal access to everybody in higher education. UCL, as a pioneer and progressive institution, played the leading part in this change of attitude of the global system. Till today, graffiti on its walls still remind to current students the struggle for the reborn of higher education and its liberation from the shackle of the market. There used to be too many slogans on UCL walls, but many of them were written in chalk and they were disappeared…
Any intervention to a monument, always adds and at the same time detracts value from it. Whether an act of damage could be called vandalism, art, political statement, mindless act etc is a combination of the personal perspectives of the viewer and the general social context that we all share. It is definitely not only a matter of aesthetics.
Dear ''Conversations on conservation of cultural heritage'', expressing political views and discussing how damage can be perceived, very often, is the same thing…
This discussion is extremely interesting, and the links proposed by many participants are great!!
Keep going…!!!
An alternative future.
ReplyDeleteYear 2050. The financial crisis ended in a different way than many people thought. After the failure of the strict economic measures, people and governments were convinced that the future belongs to education and especially to the humanities field. Huge amounts of money were invested in education purposes, in order to ensure free and equal access to everybody in higher education. UCL, as a pioneer and progressive institution, played the leading part in this change of attitude of the global system. Till today, graffiti on its walls still remind to current students the struggle for the reborn of higher education and its liberation from the shackle of the market. There used to be too many slogans on UCL walls, but many of them were written in chalk and they were disappeared…
Any intervention to a monument, always adds and at the same time detracts value from it. Whether an act of damage could be called vandalism, art, political statement, mindless act etc is a combination of the personal perspectives of the viewer and the general social context that we all share. It is definitely not only a matter of aesthetics.
Dear ''Conversations on conservation of cultural heritage'', expressing political views and discussing how damage can be perceived, very often, is the same thing…
This discussion is extremely interesting, and the links proposed by many participants are great!!
Keep going…!!!
BELOW YOU WILL SEE MORE COMMENTS PEOPLE SENT TO ME BY EMAIL.
ReplyDeleteSENT BY F:
Clear it off!! It looks unsightly!! There are other ways in which to express yourself-freedom of speach.... UCL is one of the best universities in London - graffiti does it no justice.
SENT BY M:
I feel extremely conflicted when I see graffiti. On the one hand, I am %150 in Support of people's right to express their political and other views in this way. On the other hand, when I see how it can deface beautiful buildings to the point of ruining the ambiance of a community, I am opposed to it, e.g. Toulouse France...where all the georgous old red-brick buildings are covered in graffiti - it looks like a war zone. But on the other hand (yes, three hands here) in Toronto I've seen some marvellous grafitti that adds a depth of thought to the community without
diminishing it.
SENT BY S:
This came up a couple years ago at the University of Arizona as we went through our own budget cuts. Ironically, the response to "chalkling" of the Tucson Police was far more draconian than here in London: they arrested and fined the alleged "chalker". There was quite a stir among grad students about this, although nothing like what happenned here last week. Ultimately, the university president dropped the charges. Anyway, if you want a point of comparison, here a couple links about the incident.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/godblogging/2009/09/28/cost-of-chalk-cleanup/
http://tucsoncitizen.com/godblogging/tag/chalk/
http://chalkisspeech.blogspot.com/search?q=chalk+is+speech
SENT BY J:
In my mind, this is a gray area. Certainly graffitti has been (ever since writing developed and reached the masses; e.g., Pompeii) a potent means to express all kinds of things challenging status quo/authority. The crux for me is that vandalism implies we know the intent (values) of the "artist". Often the challenging power of the message is inextricably linked with the object associated with percieve (coercive) establishment, and effacement is hence that much more "loud". From an archaeological perspective, graffitti is (for me) and important piece of evidence to understand the past and the relationships between competing factions, or (as in so many other cases where people like to leave marked evidence of their presence, as in so many cave walls, etc. the "Kilroy was Here" of GIs in WWWII), again an interesting and informative piece3 of data for an archaeologist. But for us living the historical context/moment, well it depends on what is being effaced ands what it stands for. But in a university? Here I think freedom of expression takes precedence over the cases of censure.
Are they detrimental to UCL's public face, or are they another layer of UCL's history
and significance?
Yep... the latter. To me graffitti shows that the body of this institution is alive and responsive to events (political or otherwise) and does show that in guarding freedom of expression rather than supressing it enhances the university... but I am a bleeding liberal and you will get conservative/right yelping.
SENT BY GC
Graffiti anywhere that damage historic buildings have to be considered as
vandalism and, as such, are certainly detrimental to UCL's public face.
Because they deface these buildings, they diminish the quality of the
environment in which we work. Those who quite properly wish to see them
removed (and also to see the perpetrators punished) are to be encouraged.
It is possible 'to manifest freedom of thought and expression' without
engaging in acts of vandalism, just as it is possible to engage in protest
with rioting.
"The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of insrtuction" ( graffiti on a wall in Cambridge in October 1968)
ReplyDeletethis says everything there is to say about graffiti- the context is all- this was put up during the brief period of radical and basically left activism which opposed Vietnam, opposed the regime in South Africa and supported Chairman Mao- it is relatively witty and can only be explained in the context of the time- or nearby another piece " Red women are more beautiful" which relates to the same periond and was probably put up by a memeber of the Conservative Association as a gesture of regret and recognition that the left was winning at the time!
Without the background information neither of these would make sense in terms of biography or context but both tell as story; one of wider(if local) politics and the other a sad tale of personal regret.Neither survive and both were chalked up on the grimy wall.
Graffiti whether salacious or funny - personal or general are of their time.The graffiti left to us in Herculaneum and Pompei are survivors of 79 AD - if Vesuvius had erupted 10 years later what would have been found would have been completely different.
Ideally graffiti should be witty and pointed and show some intelligence and originality.( which by and large wasn't obvious in the recent crop around UCL) Today if we want to record them the digital camera can do the job- the materials used should not be permanent in any way - what is the point of damaging portland stone- which will survive and has survived much longer than puny humans- with chemicals?
Record them, interpret them, and let them fade and be replaced by the next generation- the human capacity to scrawl on walls( apparently especially lavatory walls) is eons old, let it continue and be replaced- its merely contextual social comment. It isnt vanadlism but it is temporary .
Hi,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Sam and I am doing a phd at UCL Geography. I was wondering who took the photos on this blog as I would really like to use one in a presentation i am doing in Berkeley in a couple of weeks. Could you let me know if you are happy for me to use one (UCL is not a business) and who I should accredit it to.
Thanks.
Sam