Scrawls in the Stalls Jynne Dilling photos by Jynne Dilling Recently a group of artists in L.A. printed hundreds of bus schedules identical to those already posted in every bus station and at every bus stop; the only difference was that they changed the times listed on the schedules and posted these over the correct schedules. The recent preponderance of billboard art, graffiti art, handbills, murals, and public performances by artists such as this group in L.A. has all been ultimately directed towards the same question: who controls public space? Many of these artists set out either to satirize the existing content of public space or more often, as in the example of the L.A. artists, take control of this forum. These artists would agree that the content of a public space says a great deal about who controls that area and reveals the values and concerns of the controlling society. Take billboards, for instance: the products advertised on billboards in a certain area, as well as the actual images used to advertise the products, indicate the socioeconomic class of that region and often demarcate the racial majority as well. These gigantic color images splashed across the billboards have equally large messages to convey: who controls this space, who has access to this space, who has mobility within this space -- and, conversely, who does not. Serious graffiti artists reveal the more violent side of this control and access. If anyone tags over or even gets too close to the existing art of one of the big name graffiti artists in D.C. such as Twist, Scan53, or Cast, chances are that this trespasser will get beaten up or even shot. It is an unwritten code of written control: their tags mark their territory, the public space to which they claim sole rights and access. Anyone else's physical presence in this space is a violation, a trespass in the space they control. A recent panel on graffiti art held at the Torpedo Factory in Alexandria, VA focused on the issue of who should have control-- the government or the graffiti artists. Members of the panel argue that this sort of graffiti is democratic art, and not mere vandalism, since it challenges traditional notions of control-- that fine art belongs in a gallery. Graffiti art is an example of the masses reclaiming control of their public space. The medium of visual art, the graffiti artists argue, belongs in the hands of the people. When it comes to the idea of obsessive control of public space, U.Va. is certainly no exception. At a university characterized by tradition and Jeffersonian ideals, the control exercised over our public space here is at times frighteningly strict. Let me tell you of a time when a certain university threatened to take money out of the Student Activities Fund if the abhorrent violation of virgin public space did not cease-- viz., stapling flyers to and scrawling Philip Larkin poems on outdoor wooden construction walls. Only a year ago, this same university, struggling to fund its academic departments and maintain its resources for the rapidly expanding undergraduate class, while simultaneously facing partial defunding from the state, spent hundreds of dollars to paint these same construction walls brick red. This is a university that invests large sums of money in red paint for temporary wooden walls. A university that mulches over places where students walk, reseeds the grass about every two weeks, and constantly repaints all the white trim. A university where, if a ballsy organization posts their flyers on the colonnade in front of Bryan, or on the columns lining Mr. Jefferson's Lawn, first they will receive a warning letter and then, should they persist, will be fined for trespassing. A university that, until the mid-1980s, had not a single sign outside a building or dorm identifying its name because it was thought that such signs would create eyesores. Imagine being a first year, a new professor, a tourist, or a visiting lecturer: "Clark Hall? Um, it's the uh, brick building with the white trim. And columns, I think it has columns... just look for the Z painted in front of it." A university where flyers posted anywhere except on designated bulletin boards are almost guaranteed to be removed within a day, and if their location is particularly offensive they will be removed in a matter of hours. A university where the dining service hires interior decorators to give suggestions on how to improve the aesthetics of the dining facilities (check out ARAmark's latest addition at the Pav, the green umbrella over the fruit stand). Even the Artspace "Panel Arts Project," perhaps the most liberal licensing of public space into student hands ever seen at the university, has an extensive application process during which a student council committee decides whether each proposal is acceptable or not. More than one has fallen into the latter category. So is this strict control of public space purely aesthetic? I would argue that it is not. Rather, this argument over control of public space brings to the foreground some of the deeper values and concerns of U.Va., a university trying desperately to prove both to itself and to the rest of the world that it is indeed "the public ivy" and should therefore be concerned with appearances. No judgment need be placed upon U.Va.'s value system; nevertheless, we must recognize that these values are dramatically reflected in the use of its public space. Bearing all of this in mind, I'd like to discuss the one exception to this strict control: desk graffiti. The academic life of every student revolves around the desk, whether it be in a classroom, in one of the libraries, or in his/her room. The former two are both areas of public space, and quite possibly the only public space at U.Va. controlled primarily by the students and not by the administration. So given that the desk acts as the sole piece of turf controlled by U.Va. students, and that the desk is the fundamental motif of the students' academic life, it follows that the content of this public space reflects the values and concerns of U.Va. students. One might even go so far as to say that accurate conclusions can be drawn about the student body by analyzing the contents of the only public space we control: our desks. An absence of graffiti on desks would be almost as telling as its presence. However, one look at the layers upon layers of doodles and words on the desks at Alderman, (maybe even the desk you are sitting at right now), reveals no general abstinence from this act of civil disobedience, but rather a prolific and thriving marketplace of scribbled ideas. In fact, I daresay that there are few among us who could honestly say that we've never written anything on a desk. Even though the contents represent the actual writing of only a small fraction of the students, the very unfettered existence of these messages in the daily life of every U.Va. student, met with no censorship or complaint, is itself a strong statement. These messages, regardless of how many students contributed to the actual writing of them, are there to be internalized by every student every time one of these desks is used. Thus, the number of people responsible for writing on the desks and how long ago these things were written is substantially less important than the fact that they do exist and continue to exist all over the students' public space. Fucking women's bullshit! Stay in the fucking kitchen! So what, specifically, are these messages which cover the desks in quantities reminiscent of cavemen's horror vacui? What I really want is to be butt fucked by a sexy black girl with a dildo strapped around her waist, want to lick a black mistress and her friends at the same time. What do they say about the values and concerns of the U.Va. student body? Girls should be left in the kitchen. Pretty girls should be left in the bedroom. Every guy should have one of each. Besides the teeming amounts of Greek letters, is there any other consistent trend in the messages written on these desks? Let's all give a cheer for girls that give head! A quick scan of the 3M floor of Alderman, just the new stacks, easily yielded all of these choice phrases and more. Even the sole glimmer of women's dignity within the public space of this floor-- someone's poster "How to be a fabulous feminist" taped up next to a desk-- had scrawled lettering across the top in response to the title: "stay pretty for men." Wanted: an American Girl, smooth purring kitty Besides the occasional racist graffiti-- NIGGERS SHOULD GET THE FUCK OUT OF OUR COUNTRY AND BACK TO AFRICA WHERE THEY BELONG (caps verbatim, Maury Hall, Room 115)-- and the more frequent homophobic graffiti-- AIDS kills fags dead! is written in thick black marker on about a dozen study carrels on the 3M floor of Alderman-- the majority of the graffiti is directed at women, and none of it is especially flattering. Get me a woman to keep my house clean, cook my meals, and go away. Rare is the graffitied desk which does not say something derogatory about women. Most frequent among this graffiti is a degrading sexualization of women as opposed to a possibly empowering sexualization; none of the graffiti implies any respect or appreciation for the female body, but rather comments remain along the lines of "I LOVE FUCKING TITS," "I WANT TO EAT YOUR MOM'S PUSSY," and "FUCK FAT CHICKS." Messages that claim that women belong in the kitchen or bedroom and have no place in academia are even more disturbing. This, then, is the content of the only public space controlled by students at U.Va.: message after message shaming or sexualizing women. All girls love to suck my dick. Separate articles written on the obstacles facing women at U.Va. trying to achieve an education are hardly new territory; U.Va. is a university where 76 percent of undergraduate professors are male (96 percent at graduate), where the Women's Studies department is underfunded, and where the vast majority of female students do not feel safe walking alone at night. And still these issues are only the tip of the iceberg. Sinking further into the hostile waters we see the familiar faces that everyone seems to know all about, but still keep rearing their heads anyway: sexual assault, eating disorders, and all those "special interest" groups issues, including lesbians, women in sports, sorority women, and women of color. Though all of these have been acknowledged and even discussed at U.Va., nowhere is the ultimate significance of it more clarified than in desk graffiti: a fundamental though often unspoken notion that a woman's purpose is to serve men at home and in bed, and that women would be better off attending to those things than worrying their pretty little heads over getting an education. For the women who have forgotten this, it has kindly been spelled out for us all over our desks. Are there any bad little girls out there who need a spanking? In the insubordinate vein of the L.A. artists, one student took a step towards claiming control. On an obscenely decorated desk in Cabell, this student wrote, "If this is representative of the U.Va. student body then I'm ashamed to call myself a U.Va. student" to which others had added "Yeah" and "Me too." Someone had also added "Die you dumb ho." After 25 years at the last public university to open its doors to women, female students still face CHOKE ON CUM, BITCH every time they sit down to study. How far have we really come since 1972? If the students' public space has anything to say about it, not far at all. Not only is it sad enough that such an overwhelming plethora of these messages exists, it is still more horrific to consider the hostile academic environment for women which those messages reflect and serve to perpetuate further.

back to Decweb main