Graffiti from a geographical perspective can be defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as a verb stating “To cover (a surface) with graffiti; to also write as graffiti”. However from the view of a human geographer in regards to this statement I believe graffiti can be seen as more than more than just a tag or mark upon a wall or public space, or just as simple defined verb. It can have underlying cultural, social and political meanings challenging the societal norms but in place through the orthodoxy of certain cultures.
In regards to the history of cultural geography, Tim Cresswell wrote a book called “In Place/Out of place”. In this book he suggests that throughout the 70s graffiti had been viewed as dirty and a sore to the eyes of the public. Jean-François Staszak wrote an article called “Primitivism and the other. History of art and cultural geography” in this article he highlights the idea of how historically Western society created this ideas of ‘Elsewheres’. You could argue that these ‘Elsewheres’ still exist through graffiti as it creates a sense of uncertainty to many whilst presenting a sense of community and collectiveness to others, who often tend to be the oppressed in society. In regards to the history of cultural geography, graffiti has often been seen as having a greater connection to masculine geographies as Lombard (2013:188) states “graffiti allows men to create a more defined sense of their masculinity.”
One of the main theories and ideas regarding cultural geography which can be tied into the statement “Graffiti taught me everything I know [pl]ace” is the relationships between space and place. Anderson (2015:51) states “Places are at once the medium and the message of cultural geography”. The idea of space and place can be seen as very humanistic approach to human geography as it regards individuals actions and then their wider implications to others. It can be seen as turning a space (i.e. a wall down street) into someone’s own place by them graffitiing a mark or ‘tag’ there. I would personally argue that graffiti can be expressed as one of the ways of challenging the dichotomy between public and private space. Theo Kindynis wrote an article called “Bomb alert: Graffiti writing and urban space in London”, in this article he explores the relation between why people do ‘graffiti’ and what its implications are upon the public eye. Kindynis (2018:513) states “Undoubtedly the most controversial, yet arguably the single most important form of graffiti is the tag.” The “tag” is a termed used regarding the final product of a graffities’ actions. Kindynis believes that those who do graffiti are mainly motivated by the idea of spreading their tag around as much as possible in an area for a sense of recognition. This idea of self-recognition and almost attachment to an area through the graffiti an individual has helped proved this idea of turning a space into a place.
Graffiti needs also to been looked at from the perspective of those who do not participate in such an activity in regards to the idea of space and place. Ten Eyck (2016:219) sates “the justification for saying graffiti is destroying a neighborhood stems from the civic order of worth because the concern is with the lack of solidarity and collective interest.” This idea of a lack of collective interest can be tied back into the idea of cultural orthodox. This gives off the idea that graffiti in certain spaces is frowned upon by the majority of public however within in certain places and spaces it is supposed to be appreciated. Cresswell (1996:55) states that by “…insert graffiti into a "proper place" and rob it of its denaturalizing powers”. An example of a “proper place” for graffiti where its denaturalising powers are robbed is in an art gallery. By graffiti been shown in a place of appreciation for example by the Soho art gallery it changes and challenges the moral judgement surrounding it. Of course this did lead to some contestation and resistance as Macdonald (2001:166) states “graffiti is meant to be where it was originally born and developed, not on a canvas, but out on the streets”. This idea of graffiti losing its power can then be tied into the cultural geographical idea of place and power.
The idea of how graffiti can be tied into power and place which is one of the features of cultural geography can be explored. Many human geographers have and still focus on the why people do use graffiti as a form of resistance to higher powers of governance and regulation. Painter and Jeffrey (1965:73) state “The discourse of freedom of the individual is deeply ingrained in our dominant ideas about politics and societies in the West.” So from this you could argue that graffiti in a western society should not be as heavily frowned upon as it shows that there is individual freedom to carry out such acts. However taking a viewpoint from the other side of the story (i.e.) policing you can gain and develop a different approach towards the implications of graffiti. Myra Taylor and Umneea Khan wrote an article titled “A comparison of police processing reports for Juvenile graffiti offenders: Societal implications”. In this article they partially explore the current cultural changes within the graffiti subculture. They argue that in some areas the state are seen as losing control on the battle of graffiti as many police officers see it as a petty crime and time consuming, meaning that graffiti is not being covered and controlled. This example shows that society and power relations have been challenged and almost changed.