Dialogues with Graffiti for the Twenty First Century City
Lead Research Organisation:
University of the Arts London
Department Name: Central Saint Martin's College
Abstract
Abstracts are not currently available in GtR for all funded research. This is normally because the abstract was not required at the time of proposal submission, but may be because it included sensitive information such as personal details.
People |
ORCID iD |
| Lorraine Gamman (Principal Investigator) |
Publications
Gamman L And Thorpe A
(2012)
Design for agnostic space: reviewing design strategies for conflict accommodation in 'wicked' design scenarios
Willcocks M
(2011)
Greening not cleaning? Dialogues with graffiti for 21st century cities
in CRESC Framing the City Conference
| Description | GDN connected specialists, who rarely engage on graffiti, from local authorities; law enforcement and criminal justice; built environment; artistic/creative practice; community engagement; and academia. Three workshops presented outputs as new resource material for those registering on http://graffitidialogues.com. Contributions revealed ongoing division over issues of rights, usage of public space and some dissatisfaction with the cost implication of the so-called "broken windows" approach (see http://graffitidialogues.ning.com/group/social_policy . The "Broken Windows" theory of Wilson and Kelling (1982) posits that failing to control "incivilities" like graffiti can lead an area to undergo a "spiral of decline" and so cleaning is the required response; but evidence is mixed. Evaluation of crime prevention interventions has addressed vandalism (e.g. Clarke 1978) from a purely criminal perspective, and while evaluation is technically advanced, discussion at the workshops confirmed that it has so far failed to address the agonistic/conflictual nature of graffiti and the idea that cleaning is always appropriate. From the more radical perspective Workshop 3 identified many graffiti writers including Dotmaster, who assert that public advertising constitutes symbolic violence (Bourdieu 1984). Also its effects are abrogated by those who perceive all graffiti as deviance, property crime or antisocial behaviour rather than artistic/creative practice. Some projects, as identified in Workshop 1 (http://graffitidialogues.ning.com/group/connected_environments ) found different ways of mediating conflict around the issue of graffiti, as identified by Gómez (1993) and Iveson (2010). Subsequently, Gamman and Willcocks (2011) argued for "greening not cleaning" hot spots, at the 2011 Anti Graffiti Conference, in particular, how to demonstrate what may be of value within "the commons", or shared spaces. Significant questions linked to sustainability of managing common spaces, ownership, and importantly of inclusion or voice, in our built environments were also raised by Gamman, Thorpe and Willcocks in July 2011 to Landscape Institute; also Gamman and Willcocks to the annual CRESC conference (Sept 2011) and the Open Walls Conference (Oct 2011). Furthermore our desk-based research led us to discover an apparently growing pool of positive creative interventions, formal and informal, in relation to the changing cultures and management of graffiti/street art practices. These were discussed in aforementioned presentations regarding who "gets-up" where; and how to "grant voice" to graffiti writers and communities in manageable ways. Such projects are documented as case studies on our GDN website. For example, the projects represented via the web links below offer a sample of those we feel need to be furthered analysed and developed as case studies. i) OPEN GALLERY, DIFUSOR, Barcelona - www.openwalls.org and www.difusor.org/?s=open+gallery ii) STREET ART DEALER (C6) www.streetartdealer.com iii) REVERSE GRAFFITI (MOOSE www.symbollix.com and www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/35-greatest-works-of-reverse-graffiti/1949?image=4) iv) SIGNAL PROJECT www.signalproject.com and LOUGHBOROUGH JUNCTION ACTION GROUP www.loughboroughjunction.co.uk v) BIOTECTURE http://www.biotecture.uk.com/news.html All workshops suggested many authorities do not take 'creative' practices seriously as long-term responses to graffiti. This appears largely connected to issues of evaluation and evidence. |
| Exploitation Route | Online feedback from network members has been heartening. It is anticipated the "suite-of -responses" to graffiti, identified will be referred to and acted upon. Thus, subject to securing funding, the expressions-of-interest identified should lead to the development, piloting and testing of new approaches in, and with, appropriate geographic and social communities. We also anticipate that the depiction of graffiti as an space of conflict, contradiction and agonism, and the strategies that address this will stimulate and facilitate other socially innovative initiatives and prompt and assist socially responsive designers to come up with original resolutions. Marcus Willcocks, who researched some case studies loaded on the network, is being encouraged as an early-career-researcher to seek funding to follow-up issues raised by graffiti linked to his "Open Walls" presentation and Difusor contacts and to deliver an independent research funding application. Both Gamman and Thorpe plan to co-author/edit publications on issues raised by the project linked to socially responsive design/innovation for public space. |
| Sectors | Creative Economy,Environment,Government, Democracy and Justice |
| URL | http://graffitidialogues.com/ |
| Description | Scientific Impact GDN has catalysed a multi-disciplinary network not previously represented within one initiative. The Network workshops and directed research activities have engaged 132 specialist participants (66 Network- members on www.graffitidialogues.com, plus additional Network/workshop contributors). Fields of specialism included: • Academic-practice • Built-environment • Community-engagement • Creative-practice • Law-enforcement / Crime-science • Local-authority • Materials-solutions / Materials-development An online-survey was conducted in November 2011, yielding a sample cross-section of 18 responses (20%). Over a third were in public-sector, over a quarter in private-sector (including self-initiated creative practice), and a sixth each in third -sector and education. The potential for impact in relation to knowledge transfer into academia from outside sectors exists and vice-versa. The GDN project team were invited to present and deliverpapers to: o Anti Graffiti Association Conference, London, May 2011; o Landscape Institute, London, July 2011 o CRESC Conference, Manchester, September 2011; o Open Walls Conference, Barcelona, October 2011; Above reflects engagement with a wide cross section of partners, and how GDN is valued by experts on both sides of the debate. • Published article Gamman and Willcocks Greening Not Cleaning Graffiti Walls, May 2011. See http://api.ning.com/files/1HRa8xuL6GoZHOl27xDZlatBP8vnCz*F8lK6ELyy9j87jD0VtZ4LoCvRyDCHXj92Y2utVYbt761LjKobDYfdJ8Alm5X2jd4k/Gamman_WIllcocks_DACRC_May_2011_72dpi.pdf • Invitations Included in a documentary being produced by Kognitif http://www.kognitif.org/ (in preparation, for 2012) ; collaborated on 'Open Walls' EU grant with Difusor http://www.difusor.org/en/ (Barcelona) and Pedro Soares http://userdesign.org/ (Lisbon); invited to work with artists Aleix Gordo Hostau and Juan Carlos. Economic and Social impact The project revealed a 'suite'-of-innovative-responses-to-graffiti that go beyond the current paradigm of "cops-courts-and-cleaning", and may produce future economic-savings, to evaluate this we submitted a follow-on Pilot Demonstrator bid to AHRC, in September 2011, in collaboration with UCL and University of Bradford. Three-quarters of network protagonists identified within the online-survey described themselves as from communities/sectors outside academia. Of all respondents (academic and non-academic), almost three-quarters reported making new connections via GDN; two-thirds from outside their primary specialism. Almost 90% anticipated collaborating with people via connections through GDN or had already done so. Around three-quarters said that the experience had affected how they might address the issue of graffiti. Respondents were asked whether the network /workshops had introduced anything new to their knowledge - of 47 (multiple) responses, a third referred to new exemplars/case studies; almost a quarter to ideas on how to reframe the problem. Only 2 responses were negative. Only one respondent did not want further contact; half were interested in further GDN collaborations. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2010 |
| Sector | Creative Economy,Environment,Government, Democracy and Justice,Culture, Heritage, Museums and Collections,Security and Diplomacy,Transport |
| Impact Types | Cultural,Societal,Economic,Policy & public services |
| Description | Can We Build Social in Face of Conflict |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | Willcocks M presented 'Can we Build Social in Face of Conflict' at the Deisgned to Improve conference hosted by the University of Hamburg. Talk stimulated discussion around how to mobilise new approaches for applying social science and design research & thinking to built environments. CITY journal has invited the contributors including Willcocks to make a proposal for a special edition/special feature to develop this and disseminate further. Following the presentation, Willcocks was invited to submit an abstract for the special feature they are preparing for CITY Journal for 2015. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://arthist.net/archive/6499 |
| Description | Design against crime as socially responsive design and innovation ... a review for 'big landscapes' |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | Presentation by Gamman L, Willcocks M and Thorpe A in July 2011 at The Landscape Institute, London. Impacts are noted under the 'narrative impact' section of the award. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2011 |
| Description | Dialogues with Graffiti: Inventing and negotiating new 21st century approaches to an old "problem" |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | Talk sparked questions and a discussion afterwards on approaches to graffiti. TBC |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2011 |
| Description | Dialogues with graffiti for the twenty first century city workshop 1 : connected environments, communities, materials and technologies |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | (Workshop 1 of 3) The 3 workshops reviewed how urban contexts can best respond to graffiti, given contradictions about its value, in ways that are easily managed and sustainable; investigated and scoped out opportunities for innovation in both research and practical interventions to address graffiti, and considered what should go forward as part of a new manifesto of proposals for graffiti, linked to an online network of diverse experts and an expanding resource of significant examples, that will help continue the dialogues and upgrade knowledge, as well as review legal implications. Workshop 1 was held on 14 December 2010 in London and focused on whether common spaces be better designed and specified for the benefit of those they serve, taking account of different agendas related to graffiti practices? The workshop involved graffiti writers, graffiti removal specialists, material scientists, community practitioners and local artists, to engage in dialogues surrounding the design of common spaces, taking into account the different agendas related to graffiti practices. TBC |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2010 |
| URL | http://graffitidialogues.ning.com |
| Description | Dialogues with graffiti for the twenty first century city workshop 2 : social policy, criminal and restorative justice |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | (Workshop 2 of 3) The 3 workshops reviewed how urban contexts can best respond to graffiti, given contradictions about its value, in ways that are easily managed and sustainable; investigated and scoped out opportunities for innovation in both research and practical interventions to address graffiti, and considered what should go forward as part of a new manifesto of proposals for graffiti, linked to an online network of diverse experts and an expanding resource of significant examples, that will help continue the dialogues and upgrade knowledge, as well as review legal implications. Workshop 2 was held on 11th February 2011 in London and looked at how 21st century cities best differentiate definitions and practices, in order to stimulate effective policy, and promote sustainable law enforcement as well as local environmental and social regeneration. The presentations and discussion that followed focused around: • How might we differentiate definitions around Graffiti to help inform policy and enforcement? • Is Broken Windows Theory still instrumental in the development of Government policy to tackle Graffiti? For what reasons? Where is there evidence of success? If not, how has this theory been developed? • Broken Windows Theory indicates that environmental cues are articulated visually. How do we reconcile this qualitative visual dimension with quantitative crime science and policing approaches? How does this play against 'graffiti permissions'? • What are the specific contexts and strategies that underpin policing Graffiti interventions? • How have these strategies been developed and how are these interventions evaluated? • What is the relationship of the property managers, local authorities and police with the media, when dealing with an issue such as Graffiti? (Assuming that highlighting 'success' may encourage repeat crimes). • What are the key ambitions via enforcement and prosecution of graffiti? When building a case against one individual takes much effort and resources, how can alternative approaches be best identified, which are more cost effective and do not talk up valuable policing time. • What strategies can best help regenerate both built environments and the lives of 'offenders'. • How do authorities, property managers and police see Graffiti and responses to it developing? Naturally the economy is evolving, finances are being squeezed, so what do we think will be the most effective interventions in dealing with graffiti in the long term, is this different to short-term interventions? TBC |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2011 |
| URL | http://graffitidialogues.ning.com |
| Description | Dialogues with graffiti for the twenty first century city workshop 3 : codes of practice linked to the dark side of creativity |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | (Workshop 3 of 3) The 3 workshops reviewed how urban contexts can best respond to graffiti, given contradictions about its value, in ways that are easily managed and sustainable; investigated and scoped out opportunities for innovation in both research and practical interventions to address graffiti, and considered what should go forward as part of a new manifesto of proposals for graffiti, linked to an online network of diverse experts and an expanding resource of significant examples, that will help continue the dialogues and upgrade knowledge, as well as review legal implications. Workshop 3 was held in May 2011 in Bristol and focused around the question 'can a better understanding of the codes and activities adopted by graffiti practitioners, work to the mutual benefit of them and Society?.' The workshop engaged practicing artists, local designers, academics, graffiti practitioners and others connected to both formal and infomal creative industries to discuss codes of practice employed. TBC |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2011 |
| URL | http://www.graffitidialogues.ning.com |
| Description | Graffiti Impact event |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | Organised in partnership with UrbanLab/Barlett at UCL,and Global Street Art, the Graffiti Impact event was the first in a new series of Graffiti Dialogues Network activities, stemming from the ESRC 2010 award. This one-off workshop event provided a chance for law enforcers, place managers, authorities and practitioners to share and update their experiences on challenges for managing graffiti and street art in public or semi-public places, and importantly their preferred indicators for defining impact and value among the communities they serve. The outcomes from this event have directly informed the structure of the Graffiti Sessions event, being staged in collaborationwith UCL, UAL and Southbank Centre, which has attracted the attention and support of the London Mayor's Office, among others. Keynote speakers at Graffiti Impact included John Strutton (TfL), Lee Bofkin (Global Street Art), Marcus Willcocks and Lorraine Gamman (CSM), providing an overall review of the policy and practice context graffiti management is situated within. Following the keynote sessions, the workshop continued with case studies (short presentations) and open discussions, where the participants shared experience and examples of best practice in measuring the instances where street art and graffiti claim positive impact on communities. Projects presented included examples from Bristol (regeneration of Nelson Street and 'See No Evil' Festival, Camden Street Scheme, Signal Project, Tarner Park, Elder Place,etc). The event concluded with workshop sessions, to identify challenges and opportunities for managing illicit practices and promoting positive practice. Some of the important questions that emerged during the workshop sessions revolved around finding new approaches to the illicit practices of street art and graffiti and opportunities for community and organisational involvement: How can authorities, managers, developers and place-makers support and benefit from new approaches to street art and graffiti? How can local communities be more involved in responding to and defining the environments they occupy? How could local businesses and organisations be more involved? How can law enforcement, cleaning authorities, arts officers and developers and place- makers join up policy to save communities according to context, regarding street art and graffiti? After my presentation during this one-day workshop which I co-organised, I was approached by Adam Cooper from the Mayor of London's Office who have agreed to collaborate with Prof. Gamman and myself both during and beyond the Graffiti Sessions event, which was designed in response to the Graffiti Impact day and related research we conducted. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| URL | http://www.graffitisessions.com |
| Description | Graffiti and the "commons" of the city: Can informal practice nudge us towards more valued and more creative shared environments? |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Willcocks M contributed and presented as part of the workshop on the second day of the event - under the theme 'urban policy'. TBC |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2012 |
| URL | http://www.york.ac.uk/sociology/about/news-and-events/department/2012/taking-bourdieu-to-town/#tab-3 |
| Description | Graffiti dialogues network ... dialogues with graffiti for 21st century cities |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | Willcocks M presented at the Open Walls Conference (OWC). OWC is an international meeting that adresses public space artistic interventions, from two main strands: a seminar and a bunch of murals in Barcelona's public space. TBC |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2011 |
| URL | http://conference.openwalls.info/en/schedule/ |
| Description | The Commons and Publics of Graffiti |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | Turner P and Willcocks M gave a presentation at the briefing seminar for 'Design for Difference' project, MA Industrial design students, Central Saint Martins College of Arts and Design. TBC |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2012 |
| Description | The Street Painted in Red Herrings |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Willcocks M and Turner P gave a talk at the two day conference exploring the shifting role of the street as discourse and real physical space in the context of contemporary culture and politics. They presented under the theme 'Open Spaces'. Impacts are noted under the 'narrative impact' section of the award. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2012 |
| URL | http://www.gold.ac.uk/calendar/?id=4981 |