Urban Prophets: Creating Graffiti as a Means of Negotiating the Constructs of Urban Public Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For this examination, graffiti and neo-graffiti have been compared to public art in order to reveal the ideological constructions of urban public spaces. How does graffiti interact with the construction of urban public spaces? How is graffiti similar to and different from public art? Which of these art forms better represents the public and city living? By comparing public art to (neo)graffiti in Toronto, Ontario and Los Angeles, California, the gendered, racialized, and class-based exclusions present in R. Florida's (2002) creative cities framework as theorized by authors such as N. Smith (1996), Sharon Zukin (1996), and G. Standing (2011) can be revealed. Urban public spaces are carefully shaped by those in control, the government and corporations, with the intention of creating spaces and citizens within those spaces that can be a functioning part of their neoliberal capitalist system. Graffiti and neo-graffiti act as a visual interruption to this system, which in turn can be thought of as physically represented by public art. In this way (neo)graffiti is created by a minority of citizens with the hopes of reclaiming their right to exist in urban public spaces despite layers of ideological exclusions.For this examination, graffiti and neo-graffiti have been compared to public art in order to reveal the ideological constructions of urban public spaces. How does graffiti interact with the construction of urban public spaces? How is graffiti similar to and different from public art? Which of these art forms better represents the public and city living? By comparing public art (neo)graffiti in Toronto, Ontario and Los Angeles California, the racialized and class-based exclusions present in R. Florida’s (2002) creative cities framework theorized by authors such as N. Smith (1996), Sharon Zukin (1996), and G. Standing (2011) can be revealed. Urban public spaces are carefully shaped by those in control (the government and corporations) with the intention of creating spaces and citizens within those spaces that can be a functioning part of their system. Graffiti and neo-graffiti act as a visual interruption to this system as represented by public art. In this way (neo)graffiti is created by a minority of citizens with the hopes of reclaiming their right to exist in urban public spaces despite the layers of exclusions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".