Graffiti: Public vs. Private

            Our class discussion today brought up some interesting points regarding the formation of a public, the fact that it is self-contained. We did not get a chance, because of the fervency of our discussion regarding Kluwe’s letter, to fully discuss the Trimbur reading. One of the questions he poses, along with giving us examples of images that appear in the public sphere, is regarding the ethical implications of graffiti. I missed the opportunity to hear to your opinions in class, so I thought I’d reintroduce the topic here.

            Graffiti is inherently illegal. The legal ramifications are set in stone, as the defacement of public property is fairly easy to define. That being said, there is a distinction to be made between the lawful parameters and the ethical parameters, I believe. The purpose behind each piece of graffiti art is unique. So, too, are the ethical ramifications. While I cannot reasonably deduce what makes one instance of graffiti ethical versus another, considering the circumstantial nature of ethics, I wanted to introduce the correlation between the canvas chosen to present said art and its situational ethics.

            The presence of graffiti is ubiquitous in most urban landscapes, such as the city we live in. Some folks mentioned the cultural significance of the images outside South Station, noting that they are a part of a global movement. Though in that particular case, the artistic qualities of the images are undeniable, what if the setting were different? What if someone went so far as to deface your home?

            In HBO’s documentary “Miss You Can Do It”, cameras follow the families of young girls with various cognitive and physical disabilities taking part in a beauty pageant. One such family, the Millers, who have two daughters with Down syndrome, recounted the discrimination they faced from their community. They woke one morning to find, spray-painted all around the exterior of their home, phrases like “Retards go away” and “We’re gonna kill you”, among other obscenities. This was an obvious display of contempt, as the language used was aggressive and offensive. The unethical nature of this instance is not really blurry, but it brings up the significance of where the graffiti appears. In this case, a family’s home was vandalized. Regardless of the hateful message, a form of public art was displayed on a private canvas.

            As stated, graffiti will always be unlawful, and the ethics behind this particular manifestation of resistance will always be murky. Perspective plays a key role in determining whether a situation is ethical. In the example above, graffiti was used to illustrate the disdain of the community for the Miller family, an expression of things they could not and did not want understand. I found it important to note that though graffiti may be used as form of public sphere writing, there is a stark line between exercising one’s First Amendment rights to free speech and infringing on another’s right to safety and privacy. When the purpose behind the public message is to harass, and if the public message appears in a private place, the ethical implications are as obvious as the image itself.