Traces on the Door
- A door-based installation was refined to explore graffiti as urban dirt through situational design.
- By presenting the door as a blank surface, graffiti emerged collaboratively, shaped by place and social interaction.
- Reflection revealed that adding acts of erasure could deepen understanding of embodied responses to dirt.
Recap
Our group explored graffiti as a form of urban dirt through situational design. We aimed to observe how people interacted with graffiti, but there were some unexpected limitations.
Although we thought we had provided a strong enough context for users to engage with, participants struggled to immerse themselves, partly due to the unfinished quality of the paper door. We also realised that giving participants a door already covered in graffiti might pre-frame their response. This week, we focused on addressing those issues.
Revisiting the Idea
We briefly questioned whether the door was necessary at all. For a moment, we considered a new direction: what if graffiti wasn’t applied to space, but instead to possessions or the body?
We experimented with a paper suit that people could draw on, imagining what it would feel like for someone to leave a mark on you. But ultimately, we returned to the door format, choosing instead to focus on the act of collecting graffiti.
Collecting Graffiti
We refined the existing door, making it more realistic and detailed. This time, the door was presented like a blank canvas, inviting participants to draw whatever they liked.
We placed the door in high-traffic areas around LCC, including the central gallery, canteen, and darkroom bar.
“It kinda reminds me of a bathroom door. The door felt very inviting to draw the most obnoxious stuff so I decided to draw something funny.”
“It more like a ‘Magic Door’, when I open the door I can go wherever I want, and hope that it’s the door to my home.”
“I want to find Latino friends like me, so I left the words ‘where are you?’ in my language.”
Final Outcome
We noticed that while greetings and cute images were mostly drawn on the front side, humorous or playful graffititended to accumulate on the back. Participants often observed each other’s drawings closely and added new graffiti near ones they liked, mirroring or riffing on existing marks.
Like a shared whiteboard, the door became a collaborative surface. Some people even took photos of graffiti they found impressive.
Feedback & Reflection
We received feedback that the new version of the door looked more authentic, and people appreciated the creative expression it enabled.
However, one important point was raised: “It’s hard to tell what each participant considers to be dirt.” I agreed without a phase that involves removal or response, such as an anti-graffiti act, the experience remains incomplete.
This gave me a new insight: reverse actions like erasing graffiti could become a powerful next step for exploring embodied reactions to dirt. If I were to do this again, I’d consider including that perspective from the start.
Reference
- Douglas, M. (2002) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. 1st edn. London: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203361832
- Kelly, C. (2021) ‘Dirt(y) media: Dirt in ecological media art practices’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 26(1), pp. 31–46. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494211036964
- Mattern, S. (2023) ‘Fountain Society’, Places Journal, February. Available at: https://doi.org/10.22269/230214
More Stories
UX of Dirt Week 1
UX of Pink Week 1