Graffiti in the Lawscape: Seizing the Circuits of Valorization of an Elusive and Resistant Practice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your interesting and well documented reflections on the relations between graffiti and the lawscape. This manuscript can develop into a valuable contribution to graffiti scholarship and I am offering a few suggestions on how to get there.

 

I have recommended major revisions because I think there are some bigger structural clarifications needed – but it seems the author team could address these relatively easily. So it’s a major revision recommendation but with great trust in the potential of the paper. Here are some directions.

 

1.     Graffiti, street art, muralism, then graffiti again? Take a step back to reflect on terminology. I will try to explain. There is perhaps too loose a switch between graffiti and street art in the narration of the shift in attitudes – although, as the authors themselves recognise, the two have distinctive circuits of valorisation and, more importantly, of governance. Municipal or county/ state level graffiti management policies are often separated from street art/ public art/ urban creativity and placemaking agendas, despite their convenient aesthetic associations. So in the section on capture, the example of Wynwood street art murals is already far removed from the graffiti that triggered the first regulatory policies decades earlier in NYC. Or with Lisbon, the discussion now becomes about the effect of urban art. An easy test would be to consider what happens to unwelcome tagging in that same location and, if there is a difference between that and the ‘thing’ that has been captured (ie the murals or urban art), then perhaps terminology should be reconsidered. Reading Part 3 I want to emphasize this point even further, as now the discussion seems to move back to illicit graffiti 282-372. The way to clarify this is to go back to the research question again – who are the subjects legitimised to assess graffiti? I don’t think this is the question the paper is currently answering. Rather: what are the ways in which contemporary writing on urban walls has been valorised? And how can it be done better? That is the paper you currently have. And then your framework of repression-negotiation-capture can really shine! (it is a great contribution in itself).

2.     Conceptual positioning. What is the main point of the paper, what is the one line that you want it to be cited for? If it’s how legal pluralism offers new ways of regulating graffiti in the lawscape, then bring that theory at the beginning, and write it into a single discussion with APM’s lawscape concept. To add to this, at 316-327 you seem to be introducing the lawscape again… and the discussion of Macdonald seems insufficiently integrated + it comes too late. So bring it all up and consolidate in a single theoretical positioning. The plethora of concepts in the last section of the paper also needs to be subjected to the same process: commons, lawscape, legal pluralism, nomopoietic graffiti.

3.     You need a conclusion! I am not sure what word count you have to stick to, but if you have to eliminate some content to make room for a conclusion, you can do so from the narrative of anti-graffiti policies, especially the well-documented New York period. It is great that you brought buff into discussion at the end, and I can’t help but recommend Denis and Pontille’s work on this – especially to counter claims that the wall modification cycle is always additive. That work would also help shift the paper more to your initial question – “who are the agents”…

 

A few smaller points:

 

The paper has a welcome diversity of geographical focus – this is great and also an important contribution. In light of this, you should reconsider the statement “Graffiti writing, as a global phenomenon, also reached the cities of several African Countries.” (262) As it stands, it seems to say Africa is on its way to “catch up” in one way or another with the global north.

 

In Part 3, you talk about contradictory regulatory environments and describe them very compellingly: judgments about legitimacy and value are highly contingent, plural, uncertain. How do the authors position themselves in relation to this? When you talk about “a difficult and precarious search for legitimate evaluators referring to shared systems of value attribution” (311) – what would this look like? (I would caution against arguing for consensus) = and this could be your conclusion!!

 

354: “graffiti but accelerates a normal urban-ecological trend, whereby all that is private and abandoned or deserted, is sooner or later bound to dissolve and return to the common good” – why is this a “normal trend”? what about that which is common, or public (if such a place or thing even exists)? What temporal scale do we have in mind here? and what other considerations should this statement be embedded in?

 

To conclude my own points: please pursue this, refine it, and get it out there. It’s a valuable contribution that just needs a bit of a sharper focus and better structural integrity. I look forward to seeing the revised version.

Author Response

The point by point response is in the PDF file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Description and analysis of rejection-negotiation-capture is very nicely articulated. 

Author Response

The point by point reply is in the PDF file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Graffiti in the Lawscape: Urban Policies and Legal Pluralism" presents a genuinely engaging discussion on the relationship between graffiti and the legal framework—or what the author terms the lawscape. Moreover, it provides an insightful analysis of how graffiti itself influences the lawscape in return. While the article is thought-provoking and well-researched, I have several suggestions that I hope will contribute to strengthening its arguments and clarity.

 

First, there is a minor terminological issue regarding the term "hip-hop graffiti." The article presents graffiti as intrinsically linked to hip-hop, a connection that has been widely debunked in academic discourse. The notion of graffiti being a fundamental element of hip-hop was largely an invention of Style Wars and does not fully reflect the historical development of graffiti culture. While there was certainly an overlap between hip-hop and graffiti in many cases, graffiti as an artistic and cultural practice emerged independently, even in U.S. metropolises. It may be beneficial for the author to acknowledge this scholarly revision in the text.

 

Second, I find the introduction of the concept of the lawscape in relation to graffiti somewhat unclear. The author argues that since graffiti writing possesses a certain normativity, it should be examined through the lens of the lawscape. However, I struggle to see how these two aspects are necessarily connected. The normativity within graffiti writing reflects internal social norms regulating the practice, whereas the lawscape pertains to positive legal norms. If any form of normativity were sufficient to warrant discussion within the framework of the lawscape, the concept would become overly broad and risk losing its analytical utility. The connection between graffiti and the lawscape seems more convincingly established by graffiti’s constitutive relationship with the law—graffiti is inherently tied to legal frameworks due to its dependence on urban space and its legal status. Scholars such as Baldini and Bonadio have extensively discussed this point, and I suggest that the author frame the argument in a similar direction.

 

Third, the reference to Singapore as a context where graffiti is "partially accepted" seems problematic. Singapore is known for implementing some of the most draconian anti-graffiti laws in the world, including systematic caning of offenders. While the existence of authorized walls may suggest some level of acceptance, this does not equate to a broader societal or governmental tolerance of graffiti. Other examples might be more illustrative. For instance, in Australia, some cities have adopted differentiated zoning policies where graffiti—while still technically illegal—was tolerated in specific areas. Young has discussed this case extensively. Author engages passingly with that literature. Perhaps, it’s better to discuss that more in details.

 

Fourth, I have some reservations regarding the claim that graffiti is "nomopoietic." While I appreciate the article’s engagement with pragmatism, even legal pragmatists recognize a degree of formality in the law. Certainly, graffiti influences legal frameworks, and its emergence has led to legal changes, as the article effectively highlights in discussions on 1990s anti-vandalism laws. However, this influence operates in an indirect manner. Graffiti writers themselves do not enact legal changes; rather, their activities may inspire legislators to amend existing laws. It might be beneficial for the author to refine this argument to maintain conceptual precision.

 

Lastly, I noticed that Ferri (2016) is cited in the text but does not appear in the reference list. I recommend a careful review to ensure all cited sources are properly included.

 

Overall, this article makes a valuable contribution to the scholarship on graffiti and law, offering nuanced perspectives on their interplay. Addressing the points raised above would further enhance the clarity and persuasiveness of the argument.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

References need to be updated for consistency. There are some typos.

Author Response

The point-by-point response is in the PDF file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for putting in the work and revising the paper as per the original comments. While this is an improved version, the manuscript still needs some work, some of which is substantial. I am sending this second set of comments in order, as I read through the paper. I hope you find these worthwhile and look forward again to the revisions.

What is the literature on “circuits of valorisation” and where specifically does your contribution come in? Some situating in existing literature is necessary in the introduction – even if it’s just brief.

Legal pluralism is still insufficiently explained in the intro (see points below abut bringing up some of section 3 to fix this).

At the beginning of section 2 we need to see some concrete examples of these stages. For example, this type of statement: “Once the extermination framework is recognized as a failure, a second framework 73 emerges, namely negotiation” needs to be justified. Recognised by who? Emerges where? A simple ‘such as in the case of..” would suffice here and/ or some scholarly references – and maybe a mention of “this is discussed in more detail below”

The discussion in section 2 should be linked with legal pluralism (see again comments below on solidly establishing this framework at the top, and weaving it through the section2 narrative)

Page 6-211 “graffiti – in its manifestation as street art” – remains problematic and needs to be unpacked more. Many of the cities that have adopted street art as part of cultural strategies are still removing and punishing graffiti and have very clear and separate definitions for the two.

The point on zoning and paragraph that starts at 213 is pertinent and it stands with graffiti specifically, meaning you might not need the street art comment above.

Paraphrase and interpret rather than quote the Lisbon strategy at 260.

The paragraph at 279 needs some editing and is unclear at the moment. How is the lack of anti-graffiti legal provision linked to the weaponization of cultural tourism? The South Africa section also needs editing.

Please check your use of graffiti as a singular and plural – it is not consistent.

“New expert referees and evaluators” – who are you referring to?

319-24: these statements need backing up.

Thank you for adding the material on page 12 – this makes the lawscape discussion more robust and well developed. A few suggestions: page 11 on legal pluralism should be brought to the top and made part of the introduction. You are still bringing new theory in right before the conclusion and this means the argument doesn’t develop well enough from intro to here. If I remember well, Derrida and ‘unpower’ were not used in the previous draft and they are not currently solidifying an overall argument for the paper. This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be kept, but they need to be moved up.

469 – “graffiti is first of all irresponsible” – what is the basis for this claim?  

476 – this transition is very abrupt and the progression of the argument is missing

Overall, I suggest rethinking section 3 by moving some of it at the top and stabilising the main theoretical concepts – which will then be carried through the rest of the paper – and keeping/ adding some material which interprets the chosen concepts in light of the narrative in section 2. Legal pluralism and circuits of valorisation can be the concepts – but they need to be held up by the rest of your theoretical input in a streamlined way throughout the paper.

506 - The ”choc” of graffiti?

507 – cracking through the cracks? Revise please

516 – is coziness your best term here?

520 – if I am not mistaken, coolness is introduced here for the first time – it is best to avoid doing this in the conclusion

The final paragraph of the conclusion needs a bit more unpacking and perhaps a more literal register (as it currently stands, I am not sure I understand exactly what it means).

Author Response

The point-by-point response is in the file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf