Дипломная работа на тему "ТЮМГУ | Граффити как способ переосмысления публичного пространства и места человека в нём "

Работа на тему: Граффити как способ переосмысления публичного пространства и места человека в нём
Оценка: отлично.
Оригинальность работы на момент публикации 50+% на антиплагиат.ру.
Ниже прилагаю все данные для покупки.
https://studentu24.ru/list/suppliers/Anastasiya1---1326

Описание работы

МИНИСТЕРСТВО НАУКИ И ВЫСШЕГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ
Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования
«ТЮМЕНСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ» ШКОЛА ПЕРСПЕКТИВНЫХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ (SAS)

ВЫПУСКНАЯ КВАЛИФИКАЦИОННАЯ РАБОТА
бакалавра
GRAFFITI AS А WAУ ТО RETHINК PUВLIC SPACE AND PEOPLE'S PLACE IN IT / ГРАФФИТИ КАК СПОСОБ ПЕРЕОСМЫСЛЕНИЯ ПУБЛИЧНОГО ПРОСТРАНСТВА И МЕСТА ЧЕЛОВЕКА В НЁМ

39.03.01 Социология
Профиль «Социология и Антропология»

Тюмень 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 3
CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW 8
1.1. IDENTITY AND SPACE 8
1.2. TRANSFORMATION IN THE PERCEPTION OF PLACE 11
1.3. PLACES WITHOUT MEANING 14
1.4. UNDERSTANDING OF GRAFFITI 19
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY 23
2.1. METHODS AND TECHNIQUES 23
2.2. OBJECT OF STUDY: ONE CITY, THREE DISTRICTS 26
CHAPTER 3. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 29
3.1. DISCUSSION OF OBSERVATIONS 29
CONCLUSION 42
DISCUSSION 44
BIBLIOGRAPHY 46
ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL 50

INTRODUCTION
From year to year, we hear news that the administrations of cities around the world are spending fabulous money to fight graffiti [Leatham], [Mendelson], [Pollak], [Shcherbakov]. It is remarkable that this is not a one-time campaign. Having once smeared all the graffiti in the city and decided that the problem has been solved, the government has to deal with it again next year and spend new money on removing graffiti from the urban landscape.
Since the appearance of graffiti, there has been an eternal dichotomy in discourse about whether it possesses destructive or creative functions. Obviously, not all graffiti is considered a form of a destructive activity. Some pieces of drawings are valued for their ability to carry messages about social issues. Others are simply attractive and are created as elements of elegant street art. Consequently, there are many graffiti project that were initiated by government itself. However, remaining graffiti that does not meet these criteria is considered “a disease, a blight or a filth which coats the walls and eats into social values, property values, and the well-being of a place” [Scheepers] and are advocated by urban policy makers to be vanished from the city surfaces.
The cyclical nature of this act illustrates that something is probably done wrong. I assume that the eternal struggle with graffiti can be the result of the fact that graffiti is not actually the cause, as it perceived, but rather the symptom of some deeper external problem.
There are commonplace assumptions—which often drive municipal graffiti management policies—that graffiti bases on the writer’s supposed boredom, or the writer’s desire to damage and deface [Carrington]. Despite the fact that the majority of metropolitan authorities view and portray graffiti simply as a crime against public property and the urban environment, such as vandalism or pollution—the presence of various social and cultural reasons behind the appearance of graffiti have been already confirmed. Thus, for now, basically, speaking about motives underlying the process of graffiti writing, the discussion revolves around the topics of self-identity,
peer-activity, a sense of belonging to a particular community, or responding to important issues in the public sphere [Carrington].
Although, I give a lot of attention to graffiti in this paper, it is not the main object of my research. Here, I am mostly interested in human-spatial relationships, namely the influence of physical space on a person. While graffiti in its turn, as I suppose it to be so, is a tool that allows tracing this influence.
As I already mentioned, graffiti itself is a very broad term that combines a variety of different phenomenon and motives underlied graffiti writing. When we speak about graffiti as an element of a street art, conveyance of some ideological message or a mark of some gang community, we can say that a place, in which such graffiti appears, plays an important role as it used by the person for the creation of a particular message. As an example, let’s imagine that the inscription “F*** you” appears on some administrative building. It would be logical to assume that the author of the graffiti opposes the government and its actions or, for instance, can declare the true, in author’s opinion, attitude of the government to the people. Doubtlessly, it is possible to interpret such message in different ways, but the fact that the place of leaving the graffiti was deliberately chosen is pointless to deny. Based on this, the only sure way to combat this particular graffiti would be to change the graffiti author’s political attitude.
But how we can deal with graffiti which does not carry any cultural or social message and on the first sight would be recognized as simply meaningless. When the place is not the part of social or cultural message, what drives people to leave their mark on it?
In other words, the place in which such graffiti appears is not a conscious choice of a person to use it for the creation of some message, but might be the cause of their unconscious reaction of a person to the influence of space around. Therefore, graffti that I explore can become a way to illuminate the pure human-space relationships and to measure the influence of physical place on a person.
Although, the attempt to identify which graffiti should be recognized as meaningless and which are not, is very subjective, I apply to the common logic that if
graffiti is made as some conscious act to declare something, it should be at least noticeable by other people to make this dialog happen. Consequently, graffiti that are hidden or simply get lost in the urban landscape and does not attract one’s sight easily is the object of my exploration. In my opinion, such graffiti can cover various tags, such as someone’s signature, name, abbreviation, or random words. They are those types of graffiti that I use as the object of this study. In order not to cause misunderstanding, I emphasise that, further, when mentioning graffiti, I will mean only those tags.
By stating that such graffiti simply spoils the image of the city and, therefore, is something meaningless and unnecessary to it, policy makers advocate the cleansing of the city from it. Another argument that is frequently used to justify such a squandering of city budget is the broken windows theory [Wilson]. According to it, removing the obvious indications of urban disorder, such as graffiti, might also deter more serious act of criminality and spare the space from its marginal status. It is crucial to emphasize that I use the concept of marginalization as an acquired quality of something or someone excluded and deprived from the common system due to their possibility of challenging this system and spoiling its order. In its turn, to marginalize something (an urban place, people, or activity) means to make it unwelcome and undesirable. Marginal place can be described as unattractive to people, since there people have to cope with limited possibilities of using this place. Thus, we can see that graffiti is used to be perceived as a cause to the degradation of physical space and by being marginal activity itself might make place marginal too. However, I completely disagree with this point of view and strongly believe that, on the opposite, rather than turning some place into the marginal one, graffiti is a product of places that are already lack in their social significance.
My research is based on the assumption of contemporary sociologists and professionals in urban studies that modern urban space is experiencing a crisis, being detached from people and their needs the need to feel oneself in space and be the part of the common community. Therefore, following the Harris’s opinion presented by
Carrington, I retort that tagging a variety of urban spaces can be recognized “as if shouting against dehumanizing forces of modern city life” [Carrington, p.417].
Doubtlessly, it is the city, as a complex social system, that is the space in which all these elements exist and intertwine. It has long been proven that in the city, not only individuals and groups act as subjects of relationships. Different objects of the material world, such as urban physical artifacts, take part in this interplay. The methodological justification for the possibility of such approach is Bourdieu’s concept of “social space” that is precisely determined through such indicators as the morphology of the city, social activity, citizens’ norms and values. Physical space, in its turn, is considered one of the projections of social space, or a medium in which this social space is formed and develops [Bourdieu]. According to Lefebvre’s ideas about the influence of urban environment on the everyday practices of citizens, physical space itself is also capable of shaping a people’s behavior and the sense of self-identification within urban space [Lefebvre]. Following the Erikson’s opinion who first proposed that human identity is shaped not only by personal but social factors as well, we can say that a person forms the detrimental part of their self within the boundaries of social space by entering into social relationships and the generally accepted system of norms and values of society [Erikson].
Additionally, it is important to mention that taking into account that city accumulates both private and public physical spaces, in this research I focus on the latter one, since as it was stated particularly public place engages a person into social interactions and, therefore, makes them implement their social identities. Thus, considering public physical space one of the projections of social space or the medium in which this social space is formed and develops this paper is mostly devoted to the social part of human identity and interpret it as the degree of an individual’s involvement in the space of the city, that is, their activity as a member of a social group and their self-representation within the physical landscape.
The crucial assumption laid behind the whole work is that when a physical space does not allow person to realize their social identity, they apply to their personal one. What graffiti in this case can be. As a result, considering graffiti as being connected with one’s personal narrative, I state that graffiti can be one of the markers used to measure the social efficiency of a public space as a sign that the existing space does not support the social identity of the person and they have to resort to their personal practices, such as graffiti.
Thus, the purpose of my research is to prove that graffiti does not destroy space, as urban authorities claim it, but on the contrary appears in a place (or better to say “non-place” [Auge], which does not contribute to the generation of social space, and may be one’s attempt, as Giller states it, “to reclaim and transform the denied space” [Bartolomeo]. In other words, an individual can use graffiti to restore their relationship with the urban landscape by imprinting their mark on it, as well as adapt social reality and determine their own place and role in it.
Taking into account that a place’s vitality is one of the main criteria for estimating the sociality of a public place, empirical research is devoted to observing and analyzing individuals' behavior within urban spaces marked by graffiti. The object of my research is the city of Tyumen and its three districts that I find to be the most different in terms of the way public places are organized within them.
In the first section of my paper, I introduce the main scholarly discussions and findings in the current and contemporary literature as secondary data that can confirm my hypothesis. The considered material is devoted to the topics of urban space, including transit spaces, liminal spaces, and non-places, as well as the topic of human identity, which underlies graffiti, and is able to explain why graffiti can be considered an attempt by a person to create or restore their identity within some space. Then I go on to describe the methods and techniques used in data collection and analysis. The third section is devoted to the discussion and analysis of the observations that were made. The last section is conclusions and discussions about how the results of the study can be considered and used in the framework of urban planning in order to create places that would effectively maintain and develop citizen’s urban identity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Auge M. Non-places: introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity. London: Verso, 1995. 122 p.
2. Bartolomeo B.J. Cement or Canvas: Aerosol Art & The Changing Face of Graffiti in the 21st Century [Electronic resource] // Honors Thesis / Schenectady NY, 2001.
3. Belyj A. Peterburg [Saint-Petersburg] [Electronic resource]. 1916.
4. Bourdieu P. Social Space and Symbolic Power // Sociological Theory. American Sociological Association, Wiley, Sage Publications, Inc., 1989. Vol. 7, № 1. P. 14–25.
5. Carrington V. I write, therefore I am: texts in the city // Visual Communication. Sage Publications, 2009. Vol. 8, № 4. P. 409–425.
6. Castells M. An Introduction to the Information Age // The information society reader / ed. Blom R. London: Routledge, 2004. P. 138–149.
7. Castells M. Grassrooting the Space of Flows // Urban Geography. Routledge, 1999. Vol. 20, № 4. P. 294–302.
8. Castells M. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
9. Cudmore J. Considering graffiti as active ambiance creation in public space. 2012. P. 7.
10. Debord G. Theory of the Derive [Electronic resource]. 1958.
11. Definition of marginalization noun // Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Online: Oxford University Press, 2023.
12. Doster L. Millennial teens design and redesign themselves in online social networks // Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 2013. Vol. 12, № 4. P. 267–279.
13. Erikson E.H. Childhood and society. London: Vintage, 1995. 397 p.
14. Galiev A. Gulyaem po Evropejskomu mikrorajonu. Pri chem tut
«toksichnaya» zemlya, cygane i brusnichnyj pirog. [Walking around the European neighborhood. What does the “toxic” land, gypsies and “Brusnichnyj” pie have to do with it] [Electronic resource] // 72.ru - novosti Tyumeni [72.ru – Tyumen news]. 2019.
15. Gehl J. Life between buildings: using public space. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011. 207 p.
16. Gehl J., Svarre B. How to study public life. Washington: Island Press, 2013. 179 p.
17. Gornova G.V. Konfliktnost' gorodskoj identichnosti: vizual'nye aspekty [Conflict of urban identity: visual aspects] // Upravlenie razvitiem territorii [Territory development Management]. 2020. Vol. 3, № 25. P. 27–40.
18. Hramcov A.B. Problemy formirovaniya komfortnoj gorodskoj sredy v gorode Tyumeni i perspektivy ih resheniya [Problems of the formation of a comfortable urban environment in Tyumen and prospects for their solution] // A bachelor’s thesis / Tyumen, 2020. 95 p.
19. Jacobs J. The death and life of great American cities. Vintage Books ed. New York: Vintage Books, 1992. 458 p.
20. Kabachnik P. Nomads and mobile places: disentangling place, space and mobility // Identities. 2012. Vol. 19, № 2. P. 210–228.
21. Kudriavtseva V.I., Satybaldina D.K. Liminalnye i tranzitnye prostranstva v mobilnyh praktikah [Liminal and Transitional Spaces in Mobile Practices] // MS. 2021. Vol. 14, № 12. P. 2717–2721.
22. Kunstler J.H. The geography of nowhere: the rise and decline of America’s man-made landscape. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993. 303 p.
23. Leatham X. Transport Secretary Grant Shapps wages war on graffitti vandals [Electronic resource] // Mail Online. 2020.
24. Lefebvre H. The production of space. Oxford, OX, UK ; Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell, 1991. 454 p
25. LeGates R.T., Stout F. The City Reader. Routledge, 2015. 800 p.
26. Lofland J., Anderson L., Snow D.A. Analyzing social settings: a guide to qualitative observation and analysis. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2006. 282 p.
27. Lynch K. Good city form. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 1984. 538 p.
28. Lynch K. The image of the city. 33rd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 2008. 194 p.
29. Mendelson A. LA scrubs away 30 million square feet of graffiti each year [Electronic resource] // KPCC - NPR News for Southern California - 89.3 FM. 2015.
30. Molotch H. The Space of Lefebvre // Theory and Society / ed. Lefebvre H., Nicholson-Smith D. Springer, 1993. Vol. 22, № 6. P. 887–895.
31. Montgomery J. Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design // Journal of Urban Design. 1998. Vol. 3, № 1. P. 93–116.
32. Pollak S. Council spends €1m on removing graffiti across Dublin – The Irish Times [Electronic resource] // The Irish Times. 2017.
33. Price A. Places and Non-Places [Electronic resource] // Strong Towns. 2014.
34. Ranciere J. The emancipated spectator. London: Verso, 2009. 134 p.
35. Sahan A.H. Alienation in the urban structure and its impact on the individual and society // Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues. Allied Business Academies, 2021. Vol. 0, № 0. P. 1–17.
36. Scheepers I. Graffiti and Urban Space [Electronic resource] // Honors Thesis / Sydney, 2004.
37. Shcherbakov Y. Plata za vandalizm: Skolko tratyat na udalenie graffiti s istoricheskih zdanij Peterburga [Vandalism fee: How much is spent on removing
graffiti from historical buildings of St. Petersburg] [Electronic resource] // Telekanal Sankt-Peterburg [Saint Petersburg TV Channel]. 2021.
38. Stukaneva I.G. Generalnyj plan Tyumeni kak kompleksnyj informacionnyj resurs upravleniya razvitiem goroda [Tyumen Master Plan as a comprehensive information resource for city development management] [Electronic resource] // Upravlenie razvitiem territorii [Territory development Management]. 2015.
39. Transforming a non-place / Wildberger C. [et al.] [Electronic resource] // The research project / The Institute of Architecture Technology, University of Technology Graz, 2011.
40. Wilson G.L.K. James Q. Broken Windows [Electronic resource] // The Atlantic. 1982.
41. Wirth L. Urbanism as a Way of Life // The American Journal of Sociology. 1938. Vol. 44, № 1. P. 1–24.
42. Wolff K.H. The Sociology Of Georg Simmel. The Free Press, 1950. 402– 408 p.
43. Zubok Y.A., Chuprov V.I. Samoregulyaciya smyslozhiznennyh cennostej v kulturnom prostranstve molodyozhi. [Self-regulation of life purpose values in youth cultural space] // Vestnik instituta sotziologii [Bulletin of the Institute of Sociology]. 2019. Vol. 10, № 4. P. 164–186.