OUR PLACE? UNPACKING AESTHETIC REGULATION OF BELONGING IN VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Abstract
This article argues that graffiti is neither waste nor crime, as it has come to be known in Victoria, British Columbia. Rather, it comes to be understood this way through cultural reverence for and specific use of property and a resulting visual order. By tracing how disgust functions as a regulatory emotion—one that protects borders and maintains hierarchies—this analysis posits that reactions to graffiti are less spontaneous responses than cultivated ways of seeing, grounded in Victoria’s colonial history and its ongoing attachment to property. This understanding should unsettle societal and individual reactions of disgust and encourage Victorians to reconsider who or what is deemed to belong in the city.
To make this case, this article troubles the notion of “public space,” showing how it is exclusionary by design and that its limits are enforced through aesthetics rather than law alone. Drawing on the work of Sara Ahmed, Alison Young, and Martha Nussbaum the framework developed here explains how disgust “sticks” to certain objects and makes associations to these objects appear as objective truths. A comparison between Victoria and Friedrichshain, a neighbourhood in East Berlin, Germany, illustrates how different histories of property use generate diverging visual orders. Since its inception, part of the colonial mission in what is now known as Victoria has been to establish legitimacy through aesthetic regimes. This tradition influences how disgust is experienced by Victorians, who in turn read graffiti as waste or crime. In contrast, Friedrichshain’s relationship to private property has long been in flux and produces an experience of graffiti as a signal of belonging and shared use of space. Finally, the article examines how current discourse in Victoria—including city messaging, downtown business interests, and community attitudes—casts graffiti as waste and crime, and how this framing creates a hierarchy between acceptable pieces and unacceptable tags.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The opinions expressed in APPEAL are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Editors or the Faculty of Law. APPEAL is a refereed review. While every effort is made by the Publisher and the Editorial Board to ensure that APPEAL contains no inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or statement, the information and opinions contained within are the sole responsibility of the authors. Accordingly, the Publisher, the Editorial Board, the Editors and their respective employees and volunteers accept no responsibility or liability for the consequences of any inaccurate or misleading information, opinion or statement.
Copyright © (2018) Appeal Publishing Society.
All rights reserved. Requests for permission to reproduce or republish any material from anyedition of Appeal should be sent to Appeal Publishing Society.