“Spaces are built with little consideration for design, so that large blank walls become enormous ‘canvases” (Ibid)
It is therefore suggested that the original nature of some sites ‘invites’ a build up of vandalism, and a blank wall some becomes full of graffiti. The cost of such written vandalism is suggested to go further than that of cleaning and repairs. Safer-community.net (2004) argues that it causes fear of crime and insecurity within a neighbourhood. As this urban vandalism and graffiti raised questions over disorder from the 1970s onwards, a selection of incivility theories were put forward in order to explain the roles of such acts in certain communities (Taylor, 1999, 2001).
The ‘broken windows’ thesis was first developed by Wilson and Kelling (1982) and focused on the minor physical features of a location, such as broken windows and graffiti. They suggested that where evidence of disrepairs were left unattended, local youths were more likely to participate in misdemeanour. For Jacobs (1968) the people who live and work in the area, those who are most likely to question such behaviour, begin to feel more vulnerable and steadily withdraw from the public domain. For Cisneros (1995);
“They become less willing to intervene to maintain public order…or to address physical signs of deterioration.” (Ibid)
The thesis goes on to suggest that as the residents of the local community retreat from view, miscreants become even bolder, leading to an increase in public harassment and vandalism. Cisneros (1995) argues that an important development then occurs as potential offenders from outside the locale begin to view the area as a being soft on crime and misdemeanours. This therefore attracts more serious offenders to the neighbourhood leading to further street crime of a more serious nature, and an increased fear of crime, real or imagined, in the local population. In further developments to the incivilities thesis, Skogan (1990) specified indicators of decline in locations affected by graffiti and vandalism. Using cross-sectional data from several American cities he found that in these areas blighted by vandalism house prices fell; businesses were less willing to invest in the area; and residents who had formerly been socially attached to the community were more likely to move away. In turn, Kelling and Coles (1996) suggested that the political climate of the 1960s and 70s led to lighter punishment for relatively minor offenders, and so the threat of punishment decreased.
However, Taylor (2001) suggests that in terms of empirical data the ‘broken windows’ thesis does not provide a strong enough link between physical and social breakdown in communities, and behavioural outcomes of the population. Perceived incivilities within a neighbourhood may occur with increased fear of crime, but there is little empirical data to suggest that graffiti and other misdemeanours cause such an increase. As stated previously this report will examine people’s perceptions towards graffiti, and will perhaps add in some small way to this discussion on its proposed links to social breakdown within particular areas. The next section will describe the research method used in this study.
Research Design.
For the purpose of this research, qualitative methods of informal interviews and observation will be used in order to analyse the participants’ perceptions of graffiti. By observing particular localities the researchers are better informed as to the nature and prevalence of the graffiti in those areas. This enables the interviewer to establish, to a small extent, what the physical environment that the interviewee lives, and/or works in, looks like. The nature of graffiti at any location can also be observed, and this can be analysed in comparison to the participant’s responses.
By employing a qualitative method, the research itself may be more time consuming due to the nature of informal interviewing, and analysis cannot be aided by statistical programs and databases (Berg.2004, p.2). In addition to this, any data cannot be measured in a traditional scientific sense, in so far as it cannot be directly compared to a hypothesis. The analysis itself must consider the difference between the participant’s interpretation of meaning, and the observer/ interviewer’s (Blumer, 1969). In terms of interview technique, the rigidity of standardised, structured questions is thought not to be adequate to ascertain people’s perception of graffiti. The questions asked during an interview may change according to previous statements made by the interviewee and so it maybe necessary to ask something that was not predetermined. By not wording all questions in the exactly way, the interviewers can assure that any difference in participants vocabularies can be catered for, (see appendix 1 for a comparison of the questions asked during the interviews of various participants). For Berg (2004,p.80) the unstandardised interview technique allows the development of adaptive questions and probing of responses for each interviewee. Schwartz and Jacobs (1979,p.40) argue that this method allows relevant questions to develop from the interactive process of the interview itself.
The nature of the questions from this research (see appendix 1) follows from this unstandardised technique, in that there are no set orders or wordings, and the interviewers, who number four in all, are free to add or remove questions where appropriate.
The participants themselves are to be drawn from a variety of locations within Greater Manchester and Glossop, Derbyshire that are to be the geographic parameters for the research. In order to gain an insight into perceptions of graffiti within various sections of communities the participants selected for interviewing are from a broad section of society. The legal aspect of graffiti vandalism will be analysed mainly through interviews with local authority representatives and members of the police force. A Manchester based community group leader who organises graffiti workshops and murals will also be interviewed in order to gauge the purpose of such initiatives. In addition to this participants will also be drawn from local communities, such as estate residents and business people. Finally, a group of youths who regularly practice graffiti will be asked to participate in order to establish their own views on their actions. All participants will be given the choice as to the length and location of the interviews, and are free to say what they choose under the protection of anonymity. The interviews will be recorded and then analysed by all the researchers at a later date.
Data Gathering.
The interviews took place between December 2004 and February 2005, with, in total, data from eleven interviews being collected. All participants were contacted either by telephone, or through face-to-face meetings as they often resided in the same areas as the researchers. Where the participants were selected due to the nature of their employment, the relevant organisations were first asked for permission. Those who worked in various local council departments were interviewed at their places of employment, whereas the rest of the interviews were conducted in the homes of the interviewees. The interviews lasted from ten to forty-five minutes, with the data being tape-recorded, and then distributed among the researchers for individual analysis. All interviewees were asked for, and subsequently gave, their consent to be questioned, as well as being given the protection of anonymity and choice of location mentioned in the ‘Research Design’ section.
The structure of the questions themselves differed from interview to interview, although the researchers themselves were all aware of the themes to be explored concerning graffiti. The unstructured nature of the interview guide allowed individual interviews to focus on particular issues thought to be of concern to the participants. Such issues came from both the interviewer’s perception of the appropriate questions to forward to certain individuals before the outset, and the unfolding context of the data during the interview itself. In the latter case the participant’s answers were of direct consequence to the next question of the researcher, and therefore the interviews involved more of an interactive process than a simple ‘question-answer’ technique would have allowed for.
The interviewees were asked to participate as they were all thought to in some way represent certain groups within the Northwest region. One such group could be generally considered to include those persons whose day-to-day economic activities brought them in direct contact with graffiti. This included two members of the local council environmental team, who were responsible for the removal, and/or reporting of graffiti in their assigned areas. Mr W was the Clean Team supervisor for Derbyshire County Council’s Glossop site, and gave an interview of ten minutes in total, on the 28th January. The environmental officer for the Moss Side area of Manchester, Mr G, was also interviewed on the 9th February in a slightly longer fifteen-minute interview. Both of these interviews focussed on the role of the participants in their local authorities response to graffiti, and what they thought was the best way to tackle the problem, if they believed there was a problem in the first place. They were also both asked in what areas, and in which groups of people, graffiti was the most prevalent.
The second group was those persons for whom graffiti was highly visible in their everyday activities, but was not central to it. Of this group, ‘Mr C’ and ‘A’, had experience of graffiti on public transport, having worked as cleaners on the railway and bus services respectively. They gave interviews lasting twenty-five and ten minutes, with the questions concentrating on a wide range of subjects from solutions, to the concept of graffiti art. Others in this group included, a social services worker, ‘R’, and an independent artist and community worker, ‘Mr B’. Both interviews were given in February, and again posed a wide-ranging series of questions. The interview with ‘Mr B’ was the most in-depth lasting almost forty-five minutes. The last group included participants who were residents of greater Manchester and Glossop, to whom graffiti was a visible part of the environment in their area of residence. All these interviews took place in February 2005, and lasted for approximately ten minutes each. The participants included, ‘Ms W’, a parent in Glossop; ‘Ash’ a youth in the same area; and three residents of Manchester, ‘D’, ‘Ant’ and ‘S’. They were interviewed around a number of themes common to the research as a whole. For the purposes of the Data Analysis, questions and responses were organised into these themes, which included the perception of graffiti as either an art form, a form of protest, or vandalism. They also covered the reaction of authorities, questions of responsibility and the concept of graffiti as a social problem. Once the data was gathered in this way the analysis could proceed.
Data Analysis.
In terms of the data from the interviews, the technique of content analysis was used to interpret the responses in the form of a text. For Holsti (1968, p.608) this represents a systematic way of identifying the characteristics within the interview data, which allows various selection criteria to be put in place. Responses were categorised according to these criteria, and the researchers were able to analyse the data that was relevant to particular themes. Within these themes certain types of response could then be identified, and so the analysis was organised in a less time consuming manner. The following headings represent the themes that emerged at the early stage of analysis, and the subsequent interpretations of the data within them.
The Classification of Graffiti
Responses to questions involving the classification of graffiti, ranged from those who believed it to be, in the main, a viable art form, to those who considered it a type of vandalism. All of the respondents who were presented with such questions were placed somewhere on this continuum, although none saw it in absolute terms of being either art, or vandalism. The overwhelming opinion was that graffiti couldn’t simply be classified as a single phenomenon, and that differentiation should occur according to a number of factors, one of which was it’s aesthetic value. When asked if they consider graffiti as art, the following were some of the responses.
“I suppose that some of the pictures are art but the majority is vandalism” S
“It’s our scribble, it’s our inner feelings at times, so that’s got to be art…anyone who has seen those big pieces that someone has taken time and effort with…they are often works of art, they should be appreciated more.” Ms.W
For the majority of the interviewees it was when they could appreciate the skills involved in the production of graffiti that they considered it art. If a 'piece' appeared pleasing to the eye then it could be set apart from vandalism, which in the case of graffiti was said to ‘spoil’ or ‘ruin’ the look of an area.
“I have seen some that was quite nice but most of it isn’t and just makes places look messy” R
The fact that ‘some’ ‘was quite nice’ was echoed by Ash, who did not explain why this was so, but did identify it as a potential art form.
“You have to see it, see it for yourself…it does actually look like a work of art. It dun’t look like, like no Picasso or anything, but it does look like a proper nice piece of art.” Ash
The time and effort put into its creation was also a point of differentiation, particularly for Mr B, who spent a significant amount of time defining what is meant by the term ‘art’ (see appendix 2a). Mr B seemed to be indicating that it is the amount of effort, the thought behind the actual action of writing graffiti, that makes it art. For this respondent and Ms. W, when this effort and thoughtfulness were high then graffiti was an art form, and vandalism, which they considered to be the illegal act of drawing on property, they saw more in terms of thoughtlessness and boredom. Mr C believed that although graffiti had been practiced for many years, but it was with the rise of the hip-hop style of drawing that had seen it emerge as an art form in it’s own right. It was the final product, and the planning that had gone into it, not the actual action itself, that made it either art or vandalism.
A third point that came out in the interview data, concerning how graffiti should be classified, centred on where it was located. When certain spaces were said to be affected, then graffiti was discussed in terms of vandalism. The majority of the respondents identified with this point.
“(It is art) when people don’t vandalise churches and schools, walls that aren’t meant to be used for this” Ant
“It makes you a bit cross when you go down to Withington village and you see it all over someone’s house you know. You know you think that’s really wrong doing it all over someone’s house” Mr G
The views indicated that the location of graffiti was therefore an important factor when regarding it as vandalism or not. If the defacing of public property was involved, including houses, schools and bus shelters, then the general view was that this constituted a crime, and was therefore vandalism. Areas where it was more tolerated were raised by Ant (see appendix 2b) who saw it as a question of offending others, thereby inferring that a sense of acceptability is involved. Mr B and Mr C, however, appeared to hold the view that the nature of self-expression in an artist meant that a specific location did not ‘turn’ graffiti into vandalism, and indeed the choice of location could actual add to the artistic statement (see appendix 2c). These two interviewees, although not in agreement with the sentiments of the other respondents, do still stress that the location of graffiti still has a role to play in the way that it is perceived. In terms of classification, it could therefore be suggested that the manner of the location, alongside the perception of the time spent on it and the aesthetic value, were all factors that influenced the respondents’ evaluation of individual pieces of graffiti.
The Perpetrators of Graffiti
When asked who they believed was writing graffiti in their area, all the respondents in some way mentioned young people or teenagers. Even when the question was not answered directly, phrases such as ‘the kids’ were used to describe the people thought to be involved. It could be suggested that the interviewee’s perception of the perpetrators was almost entirely linked to this age group. This is illustrated by the following responses to questions asking who was responsible for graffiti.
“I think it is probably mostly teenagers or kids, I can’t really see that many older people doing it.” R
“Teenagers. I don’t think you’d get an old aged pensioner doing it” S
These perceptions were often backed up by actual physical evidence that the participants had observed. For instance A suggested that on the buses, graffiti was more regularly practiced at times when children of school age were users.
“It’s school kids mainly. On their way home or at weekends” A
The actual content was also a factor that the interviewee’s thought to indicate the young age of the perpetrators, with several mentions of commonly written statements and drawings. On the question of this content Ms. W described what she had seen (Full version in appendix 2d).
“All sorts of things…who the kids like or who they think they’re in love with…they’re teenagers and that’s what teenagers do” Ms. W
The style and content of graffiti was seen by some of the respondents as also being an indicator of gender, as the general consensus was that the majority of the young people who did it were male. Just as in the use of the phrase ‘the kids’, the masculine tense was overwhelming used in the interviews to describe the abstract ‘graffiti artist’. Young girls were generally spoken of in terms of writing messages of affection.
“…you do see things like somebody loves somebody written by girls on walls” S
Mr G, who saw a difference in the style of writing, echoed this.
“I have noticed over the years that I have been doing this job that more girls are doing it. You see more girls names appearing and the writing’s neater” Mr G
The above interviewee viewed the style as a direct indication of who had been doing it (see appendix 2e). The interviews showed that the overall perception was one of young people expressing themselves, rightly or wrongly, through practicing graffiti. There was also though awareness that it was used to express other things than individual emotion.
For Mr C graffiti was a phenomenon that could be traced back to the 1960s with politically motivated messages.
“During the 1960s when my mother was involved with the CND party she used to go round painting ‘ban the bomb’ signs all over the bridges” Mr C
This use of graffiti for political purposes was also cited by Mr B who mentioned the ‘Black Power’ movement of the 1970s (see appendix 2c) and Mr W, as he spoke of the religious statements that he was aware of in his area.
“We have had err…certain incidences of religious graffiti at the cemetery which was obviously somebody older as it was just sort of nature of what they’d written that seemed to suggest this.” Mr W
This use of graffiti was also apparent to the researchers, who through their observations determined that racially motivated sentiments were common throughout Greater Manchester, particularly in toilet cubicles and at the various libraries of the city.
The respondents also mentioned to a lesser degree the use of graffiti in gang related activities, particularly Mr G, who worked in the South Manchester area (see appendix 2f). He suggested that it is used to mark territory and to provoke others, with its preservation often leading to threats against those trying to remove it. Mr C said that in North Manchester graffiti was used in his childhood to demarcate the areas of musically based groups of youngsters. He mentioned that through boredom, lack of self-esteem, and pressure to be noticed within his gang, he would write his name or musical taste in various places.
“There was battle lines being drawn between the skinheads…who were racist, and we were the mods, we were soulboys. People in our area had parents who were politicised by the 1960s, and those people were into soul music” Mr C
Overall the respondents saw the perpetrators as being young, with the content of the graffiti representing youthful thoughts and emotions. However there was a sense that it was sometimes done for other purposes. These purposes were often linked to how they classified it, as when the perpetrators went beyond childish sentiments it was perceived in terms of it’s message, and not in terms of the act.
Graffiti as a problem, and the solutions to it
In general there was a difference in the perceptions of graffiti as a problem between interviewees in Manchester and Glossop. Ms W and Mr W believed that Glossop did not have a significant problem.
“We don’t suffer with particular graffiti problems, not, not in the Glossop area…with it being a rural area we don’t particularly suffer” Mr W
“It is something that I am not used to round here, you don’t see it on the streets. I don’t walk outside and see it outside my door.” Ms W
All of the participants seemed to associate graffiti with urban areas, and there were frequent mentions of it with regards to buses and trains. On public transport in the 1980s, Mr C, who was a former railway cleaner and guard, associated most graffiti with travelling football supporters, and suggested that at other times he had not viewed it as problem. He did state however, that he spent up to an hour a day cleaning it off, and that if he owned the company this would cause him concern. A, however, did see it as a widespread problem on public buses, and suggested that he dealt with it on a day-to-day basis.
“It’s ‘everyday’ serious. It’s on every commercial vehicle.” A
Interestingly, for R the widespread problem of graffiti on public transport, did not translate to be a problem in other public places, such as her workplace at Moss Side social services. Another worker in Moss Side, Mr G, spoke of the area as a whole, stating that the problem was ‘absolutely horrendous’ and that
“it might not be as bad as some inner city areas but for a reasonably clean estate it’s very prolific, it must be costing a small fortune.” Mr G
This respondent believed that it was a worse problem in working-class areas, and in these places it was occurring more and more. When discussing the effects it could have on an area, most of the interviewee’s responses were roughly similar to the assumptions of the ‘broken windows’ thesis. They claimed that it affected the tone of an area, and can make people feel more reluctant to go there. All but one of the participants associated areas with a high amount of graffiti with high levels of crime, and they saw a link between the two. When presented with a simplified version of the ‘broken windows’ theory, Mr B claimed that crime would occur regardless of what an area looked like.
“I don’t think there’s a link. You don’t start smoking crack just because the street corners have got someone’s name on them. If anything a wall with graffiti on, is better than just brickwork, it can cheer you up” Mr B
Although this was against the general incivilities theories, it was an anomaly in the overall views of the interviewees. The general feeling was that graffiti did start a ‘domino’ effect, as stated by D.
“When teenagers ruin walls on shops, apartment blocks, churches, schools and public toilets, it destroys the look of an area. It makes the area look rough and uncontrolled, teenagers doing what they like.” D
On the whole the interview data presented graffiti as a problem to residents of Manchester, with those in Glossop believing that this was the case in such a city, but not in their own area.
The interviews reached their conclusion with questions centring on possible solutions. These produced a wide range of responses that included simply cleaning, education, ‘free walls’ and social inclusion. The two participants involved at local council level, Mr G and Mr W, believed that legislation was in place to punish those involved in graffiti (see appendix 2g), but this created the problem of actually catching them.
“as for catching them…almost impossible to be honest with you it’s more of err, try to deter…as regards to catching them…(shakes head)” Mr W
Council policy as stated by the interviewees, was to clean it off within a certain amount of time, but this created the problem of damaging the surface, and also for A, a blank surface that would just be written over again. Some of the respondents thought that the actual cleaning could be done by the perpetrators, when they were caught, but Mr W stated that this raised several problems with health and safety due to the nature of the chemicals used. Mr G thought that fines could be used, on both parents and youths, but as with any punishment saw a difficulty in actually catching the offenders. This interviewee also believed that education could provide a possible solution to the problem.
“I do believe that children should be educated about this problem at school. They should be taught to respect other people’s property and the areas that they live in. If they see others doing it they think it’s okay.” Mr G
For Ms. W, Mr C and Mr B, the problem was on of social exclusion. They saw graffiti as a symptom of a wider malaise, in which young people became bored and disaffected; therefore turning to random acts of defacing property. Mr B suggested that children should be encouraged, through a variety of programs, to express themselves through art, and if the appropriate levels of funding were in place then such expression could be done in the right place, and not on the streets. When the idea of legal ‘free walls’, given over specifically to graffiti, was mentioned, the participants thought that in general this was a good solution. However many did suggest that this could not tackle the problem completely as they believed that the act of doing something illegal was what gave the perpetrators of graffiti a ‘buzz’. The general opinion from the interviews was that any solution to graffiti as a problem could never tackle it absolutely, and that it had become part of urban life.
Research Findings.
This research attempted to highlight the responses to, and perceptions of, graffiti in areas of the north west of England. It showed that there are three important areas of discussion, that attempt to ascertain why it occurs, who does it, and what affects it has on communities. The very use of the term ‘graffiti’ presented people with the problem of defining what it is, and those subsequent definitions affected their opinions on it as a phenomenon.
When asked to state whether they would, on the whole, classify graffiti as art or vandalism, none of the respondents saw it as purely one or the other. There was an awareness that each piece should be taken on it’s own merits. The interview data suggested that three factors were important in deciding how individual examples should be classified, with the notion of this artistic merit being one of them. It is this aesthetic differentiator that was used as a measure of value, in that when these manmade items were not nice to look at, they were to be considered vandalism. The idea of what constituted a work of art was also found in how graffiti was planned, and how much effort had been expended in its creation. This was similar to the way in which many other forms of self expression are discussed as art or otherwise, but the very nature of graffiti means that it is done in a location and so it was classified not just in terms of it’s production. The respect that an individual piece afforded its surroundings was important in this classification as well.
From the data it would appear that graffiti is overwhelmingly thought to be a product of youth, and all the lifestyles and emotions that accompany it. Whether it was simple expression, or the product of territorial positioning, graffiti is thought to be the mark of young people. Even when actual statements were of an adult nature, as a form of expression it was seen as ‘child-like’. In terms of this perception, graffiti was often seen as a lower form of vandalism and mainly as being an urban problem. As with many urban issues there were a numbers of solutions, but it was not on the whole seen as a major problem, and there was no passionate opposition to it. It can be said from the research that graffiti was perceived as being part of contemporary, urban living, and that any responses to it as a problem were thought to be largely ineffective.
Critical Review.
This research project has in some way illustrated people’s perceptions and feelings towards graffiti in their area, but the small number of participants suggests that future inquiry should attempt to involve a greater number of participants, both in terms of researchers and interviewees. This would add a greater degree of validity to the findings and aid the effectiveness of the research. In terms of the group work involved, the unstructured nature of the interviewing did allow for reaction to occur freely in the interview process, and it is this that often produced the most informative responses. The problem of this method was that individual interviews differed greatly in their structure and length, thereby varying the quality of the data. This produced a tendency at the analysis stage to concentrate too heavily on certain interviews, at the expense of others, thereby further reducing the overall validity of the data. With such a small pool of informants, the higher quality interviews became more ‘dominant’ in terms of how long was spent analysing them, and so individual opinion became magnified with regards to specific issues. A larger pool of participants could once again deal with this problem.
Problems also occurred in co-ordinating the research in terms of access to interviewees. Although it was relatively easily to secure interviews with members of the public known to the researchers, this became less so when attempting to gain access to those whose activities were central to the area of study. Participants working at local authorities were difficult to contact, due to the high levels of bureaucratic organisation within their workplaces, and even when this contact was made, selecting a suitable time was problematic. As the reason behind requesting such interviews was ultimately about their work, it was thought that it would be simpler for the researchers to travel to this place of work. In practice however, this affected the data gathering process, as interviews were often interrupted, or even cancelled, due to other commitments. In addition to this, young people who were identified as practitioners of graffiti were often vary of being interviewed as they were essentially being questioned about their illegal activities. This apprehension on a number of occasions resulted in cancellations, and on one occasion verbal abuse directed at one of the researchers. Even when access was granted, the level of suspicion towards the whole process hampered the amount of cooperation, and therefore the validity of the information received. Despite this though it was thought that the overall standard of the interviews was of reasonable quality.
In terms of the methodology involved in this research, the unstandardised method of interviewing did allow questions relevant to the interactive process to develop. As mentioned above, the probing of responses within this method meant that the questioning was adaptive and therefore the process was more interactive. This helped to give the interviewees a sense of taking part in a more ‘natural’ conversation, and this was visible, as they became increasingly relaxed and willing to volunteer a greater amount of information in the presence of the interviewers. A more standardised approach, for instance, would not have as readily provided the more in-depth answers needed for this research. Rigid lines of questioning would have reduced the chance of moving beyond simple ‘yes-no’ answers, which in turn would have significantly reduced the information gained from lines of enquiry, such as ‘Is graffiti art?’ A more standardised approach however, would have possibly reduced the amount of irrelevant information that was gathered, as the interviewees would have been guided more thoroughly through their responses. Such a systematic interview technique would have ensured that most of, or all of the information gathered was of relevance, and this in turn could lead to a less time consuming analysis. The downside of such an approach could be that information gained through probing would not have been recorded. It was thought that future research should include more structure to the interview process across the different interviewers, but that an effort should still be made to preserve probing and conversational techniques.
The use of content analysis on both a manifest and latent level (Berg, 2004, p.269) meant that responses could be examined both in terms of the actual text and the underlying meaning behind the data. This allowed the frequency of similar statements to be measured, and therefore some idea of the thoughts of the interviewees as a whole to be established. This was important in summarising the themes that occurred during the interview process. However, in order for this approach to analysis to be carried out is was necessary to establish these themes before the in-depth examination of the data. This could have had the effect of the researcher overlooking some aspects of the interviews that did not directly align themselves to these themes, in that seemingly irrelevant data could be deemed relevant is the criteria were changed. By limiting the scope of the research in such a way, the researchers cut down the workload but may well have missed vital pieces of information. A second disadvantage of this method was that the intricacies of the social interactions involved, such as movements, gestures and nuances of speech were not taken into account, and therefore some meaning may have been lost. These could have been recorded in some way that would have added to the analysis and in some way explained the causes behind the interviewee’s answers. These answers though did provide information that aided the original research question, and by analysing the content the researchers believed that such responses enabled them to adequately ascertain the perceptions and responses to graffiti among the participants.
Appendix 1- example of questions used in the interviews
On classification.
Graffiti- is it art?
Do you think that graffiti is vandalism or art?
In what cases do you think it is art?
Have you ever found any graffiti that you would consider art?
The perpetrators of graffiti.
What age group do you think are generally responsible for graffiti?
Do you think any particular gender does graffiti the most?
Do you find the same problem of graffiti in middle-class and working-class areas?
Who do you think is responsible for doing graffiti?
Why do you think people do graffiti?
Graffiti as a problem and solutions.
Do you think the government should punish those who write it?
Do you tend to get much graffiti on or near this building?
What do you think should be the punishment for people who write graffiti?
What would you do if you caught someone writing graffiti on your property?
Where do you usually find graffiti?
What do you think of ‘free wall’ initiatives?
Do you agree with free walls and do you know where they are?
How do you think people how do graffiti should be stopped?
Appendix 2- transcriptions from the interview data.
Appendix 2a.
“(It is art when) you have spent some time thinking about it, because you’ve thought about it. You know it’s only took the vandal two seconds to do that. It’s took the graffiti artist all night to do his tag, or several days. He’s gone back over several days, or several nights. He’s gone back and spent his time doing it. He’s not just walked past, an artist doesn’t just walk past somewhere and just do something like that, he thinks about it, he thinks ‘that’s where my tag is going and it’s gonna look great there- my tag’. And it does. By the time he’s finished it looks brilliant, it is a piece of art…Where it started in New York, they must have waited for the same tram, train, or carriages- whatever, to go by so they could add a bit more to the art. And they have to wait for a day to do a bit more. Do you know what I mean? So that is art, whereas the vandal, the scribbler, the kid on the bus, they just write ‘whoever was ‘ere’. That’s not art. That’s just boredom. There is a difference between graffiti and vandalism, graffiti is art, vandalism is not art.” Mr B (original emphasis)
Appendix 2b.
Interviewer: Have you seen graffiti in your area that you think is art?
“No I have not seen it in my local area, but I have seen it in cities. One time when I was visiting London I saw a lot of great graffiti, it wasn’t inappropriately written on shop walls or houses where it might spoil the look of an area. It was done on the walls of a skateboarding area which gave the place a funky look as it’s used by young people. I saw excellent graffiti under bridges and free walls, I don’t think these would offend anyone.” Ant
Appendix 2c.
Interviewer: how would you feel is someone was to write at the side of your house?
“It would depend what they wrote. On my old garage one of the best pieces of graffiti I saw was when some one had wrote ‘Black power’ on the wall in the 70s, and then someone had changed it to ‘Black and Decker power tools. That was brilliant, although I suppose you could say they were both vandalising my stuff…I thought that was fucking brilliant, you’ve got to admit that some of it is pretty fucking funny.” Mr B (original emphasis)
* *
“The artist is compelled to do it in a certain place, even if it’s graffiti art. You have to do it. You can’t stop yourself doing it. The graffiti artist can’t stop himself doing it, he has to do it.” Mr C
Appendix 2d.
“All sorts of things. Mostly notes about who the kids like or think they’re in love with. A few things that people maybe offended by, some titties and other genitalia, a few ‘naughty words’, faces, spliffs, that sort of stuff, they’re teenagers that’s what teenagers do.” Ms. W
Appendix 2e.
“It is more boys overall, but more girls are joining in. Girls are less aggressive, they don’t use swear words usually, well I say usually (Laughter) they, um, usually write their names, their friends names, boys names who they are going to love forever, or the way they write these days ‘for eva’ (more laughter)” Mr G
Appendix 2f.
Interviewer: why do you think people do it?
“…a way of confirming they can write. Another thing of course is gang related to mark territory and provoke other gangs, they do it near to where they live and you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know who they are…There is a lot relating to someone who has been shot, it’s being done by his mother, I can’t say the name, but it’s around Moss Side…that’s probably gang related as well. After it has been removed it is quickly reapplied by gang members and in fact many teams sent out to clean graffiti have been threatened and as a result only go to some areas early in the morning to avoid confrontation.” Mr G
Appendix 2g.
“The legislation is already in place for prosecution, there’s two, well three main laws. There’s the Criminal damage Act, the Violence of protection Act, and there’s also the Town and Country Planning Act. You could argue that the Town and country Planning Act go more along the lines. A specific Trust could probably use it under graffiti as well because it’s defacement of public buildings, whether it’s fly posting or graffiti. There are probably a number of other laws, but there is legislation there.” Mr W
References.
Berg, B.L (2004) (5th ed.) “Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences” San Francisco: Pearson Education Ltd
Blumer, H. (1969) “Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method” New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Cisneros, H.G (1995) “Defensible Space: Deterring Crime and Building Community” at , accessed on 03/11/04
Cohen, S (1973) “Property Destruction: Motives and Meanings” in Ward, C (ed) (1973) “Vandalism” London: The Architectural Press
Deal, C & Spar, O (1998) “History of Graffiti” at , accessed on 03/11/04
Duffy, J (2002) “The Plan to Legalise Graffiti” At BBC News Online, accessed on 03/11/04
Holsti, O.R. (1968) “Content Analysis” in Lindzey, G. & Aaronson, E. (Eds) “The Handbook of Social Psychology” Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Melly, G (1975) “Introduction” in Perry, R (1976) “The Writing on the Wall: The Graffiti of London” London: Elm Tree Books
Jacobs, J (1968) “Community on the City Streets” in Baltzell, E.D (ed) “The Search for Community in Modern America” New York: Free Press
, accessed on 03/11/04
Kelling, G. & Coles, S. (1996) “Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring order and reducing crime in American cities” New York: Free Press
Nicholas, P (2002) cited in Duffy (2002)
Pelling A (2002) cited in Duffy (2002)
Reisner, R. & Wechsler, L. (1980) “The Encyclopaedia of Graffiti” New York: Galahad Books
www.safer-community.net/validurl.asp?path=/contpages/topissues.asp?idno=83^iItem=1, accessed on 03/11/04
Schwartz, H.& Jacobs, J (1979) “Qualitative Sociology: A Method to the Madness” New York: Free Press
Skogan, W (1990) “Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Cities” New York: Free Press
Taylor, R.B. (1999) “The Incivilities Thesis: Theory, measurement and policy” in Langworthy, R. L. (ed) “Measuring What Matters” (pp.65- 88) Washington DC: National Institute of Justice/ Office of Community orientated policing services
Taylor, R.B (2001) “Breaking Away from Broken Windows” New York: Westview Press
Wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti, accessed on 03/11/04
Wilson, J.Q & Kelling, G (1982) “ Broken Windows” Atlantic Monthly, 211 March
