Full text of Graffiti op-ed

One of my first lessons as an opinion writer is that it is better to write directly to a word limit rather than cut something that was originally longer.  The editorial featured in FFWD on Sept. 30 was a product of the first process.  I won't do that again, but to address some of the comments pointing out some of the deficiencies in the published version I am posting the original article here.

End the War on Graffiti  (link to original FFWD Weekly article)

The controversy over urban graffiti is passionate and ongoing. On one side are those who argue that graffiti is a legitimate art form. The fact that private property is defaced in the process of its creation, which uses public and private urban spaces for its canvas, is secondary.

Opposing them are those who view graffiti as vandalism and graffiti writers as criminals. To this group the fact that graffiti writing, properly done, is a highly creative endeavour requiring years of practice and training is unmoving. The violation of personal property rights inherent in the act of graffiti writing is enough to summarily dismiss any perceived benefits.

Calgary and many other cities around the world have taken the latter view and have declared war on graffiti. The city’s militant anti-graffiti policy is based on the contested “broken windows” theory of neighbourhood transition put forth by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in 1982. Theoretically, a broken window left unattended sends the message that people don’t care about the state of their neighbourhood. That no one cares, in turn, invites more vandalism, neglect and decay until eventually the neighbourhood spirals out of control.

The theory is challenged because it focuses on the symptoms of urban decay – broken windows – without addressing its true causes which may include poverty, lack of opportunity for meaningful work, racial discrimination or other disadvantages. Graffiti does not produce unsafe places, unsafe places produce graffiti.

Despite being contested, “broken windows” has been uncritically adopted in many places, including Calgary, where it has played an influential role in shaping public policy. The city’s graffiti FAQ presents a simple restatement of the theory: graffiti it says “is a direct reflection of its residents' commitment to the care and upkeep of their community.” As graffiti is the exemplar of the metaphorical “broken window,” it is legitimized as a target for strong community action.

But it has been known for decades that a “law and order” approach is costly, hard to enforce, difficult to sustain and mostly unsuccessful. As with the wars on drugs and terrorism, escalating the war on graffiti escalates the costs but does not prevent graffiti from proliferating. Despite this, loud voices on city councils and from some segments of the public continue to urge a hard line approach.

On the heels of Calgary council’s recent decision to maintain harsh penalties and high fines for graffiti crimes, in October the Calgary Police Service will co-host with the City of Calgary Animal & Bylaw Services a conference entitled “The Anti Graffiti Symposium (TAGS).” The title on the conference website is cleverly depicted in graffiti-like script being applied over (presumably unwanted) city graffiti by a spray can emerging from a policeman’s badge.

The image is drawn from graffiti culture in which over-tagging is demonstrative of a hierarchy of power relations. It sends a clear message expressed in the symposium’s stated purpose: to “share and gain knowledge in the area of graffiti-vandalism prevention, enforcement, investigations and charging” (http://tagsconference.com)

Among other topics attendees can hear about: the psychological profile of the “graffiti vandal”; the motivations of graffiti writers; graffiti culture; new anti-graffiti products; and why jurisdictions should conduct annual, city-wide graffiti damage assessment surveys. A number of the sessions are for law enforcement personnel only.

Ironically, the fact of the conference is evidence of its own futility. After all, such meetings wouldn’t be necessary if anything being discussed at them actually solved the problem.

The truth is that there is little new in anti-graffiti strategy and tactics. In a 1993 note to the University Of Michigan Journal Of Law Reform Marisa Gómez outlined the major issues in the graffiti controversy. The 70-page article provides insight into the different kinds of graffiti, the varied motivations of the writers, a discussion of anti-graffiti strategies and tactics and an assessment of the success or failure of these methods. Judging by the presentation summaries on the TAGS website little is known now that was not known then.

Gómez concluded that standard anti-graffiti tactics have, at best, been only marginally successful. More often they fail. In fact, the only graffiti abatement strategies that have ever achieved sustained success are those which pursue a program of compromise and hold an ethic for sharing of urban space. And Gómez is not alone as social scientists generally share this conclusion yet, not surprisingly these approaches are missing from TAGS.

The reason anti-vandalism policies have failed, claims Gómez, is because they ignore the motivation behind different types of graffiti. Clearly some graffiti is criminal. But gang graffiti, hate graffiti and pornographic or obscene graffiti is, without question, of a different ilk than the graffiti of the teen tagger or midnight muralist. The punks that perpetrate hate crimes using graffiti as a medium should be the object of tough enforcement.

But for the rest, the majority of graffiti writers, there are more effective and much cheaper solutions.

How might it work? In exchange for a regime that recognizes graffiti as an art form, differentiates between the motivations of graffiti writers and provides legal space for graffiti art to be expressed, graffiti writers would restrict themselves to specified places and agree to a minimal set of decency guidelines. This approach constructively redirects unwanted graffiti in unwelcome places to places that are acceptable.

The idea is to appeal to the prime motivation of graffiti writers: exposure. In return for refraining from defacing public and private property, writers could be granted access to urban spaces both public and – with the consent of the owner – private. As the skill of the artist increases, access to more prominent spaces could be made available. The highest profile places in the city could be awarded to the most popular artists, perhaps after an annual competition.

Eventually, the thinking goes, the cool way to get exposure will be the legal way. In turn, writers get a positive way to vent their creativity without being criminalized. A program along these lines, in combination with the anti-graffiti strategies being discussed at TAGS – to deal with the criminals – would yield a much more favourable result while at the same time saving money and resources.

But where would the graffiti go? That depends on how we honour the promise to accept graffiti as legitimate art. If it is art then it deserves to be exhibited in its natural context. It also means that, like all art, it can be provocative.  Some people hate it, some love it and others don’t care. The point is graffiti art, like all art, should not be dismissed simply because it doesn’t appeal to individual tastes even if those tastes are shared by the majority. As long as the material is not obscene or discriminatory it has a place in our cities.


There are many suitable places graffiti could go. For example, graffiti could be created on some of the endless miles of ugly and mundane sound walls lining Calgary’s urban expressways. Also, many of the places now illegally targeted by writers could, with cooperation from property owners, be adapted to legally host artistically rendered graffiti work. Willing property owners, perhaps in exchange for a say on content, might invite artists to decorate homes or businesses.

These are just suggestions. The details of such a program could be worked out by creative stakeholders; that is not the issue now. The issue is the prohibition philosophy of graffiti abatement adopted by the city has the dubious twin qualities of being both expensive and ineffective.


The city’s graffiti FAQ baldly asserts that “Graffiti is an eyesore that ruins the natural and architectural beauty of a city.” I and many others disagree. To me well done graffiti art adds warmth and humanity to urban landscapes that all too often have the charm of a hospital ward. Sanitized and efficient perhaps, but not a place one wants to spend much time.

There is another way and we, as citizens concerned with the quality of the urban environment and as taxpayers concerned with the public purse, should demand it.