These signs which originally only had one meaning have been vandalized and altered to change its meaning. Normally, a stop sign is a traffic sign used to tell drivers to stop and only proceed if the way is clear. On the top sign, the word “consuming” was graffitied on and on the bottom sign, the words “eating animals” was stuck onto it. The use of these words has completely changed the meaning of the stop signs. Now, not only are drivers being forced to obey a traffic sign, these drivers along with the rest of the public are also now being persuaded and influenced by these signs.
These signs are considered transgressive because the meaning of this sign as been altered due to someone that has vandalized a property that is not their own. I would consider these transgressive signs as graffiti. Although to many people graffiti is a type of art form, I feel that this type of art cannot just be placed anywhere, especially if it if vandalizing something that is not their own. I do think that these signs are considered transgressive, but only to an extent. Specific signs that have been vandalized which such art such as graffiti have been named as “transgressive” by the law, but not everyone feels the same way about this, especially the ones who are expressing themselves through these types of art forms. In this particular case, yes these people are vandalizing a traffic sign and disobeying the law, but on the other hand why must these people subject to not portraying their beliefs and concerns to others? These signs can also be considered transgressive because they are most likely offensive to a certain group of people, specifically with the sign “stop eating animals”. I do eat meat, and although i am not personally offended by this sign, other people who do eat meat on a daily basis might think that this sign is unnecessary and going against what they believe.
The people who drew graffiti on top of these stop signs are strong believers in a certain cause that they want the public to become aware of and act upon. In this case, the “stop consuming” sign was graffitied by someone who feels strongly about the environment, and wants the public to stop consuming, which could be a numerous different things. The individual who placed the “eating animals” sticker on the stop sign feels that eating animals is wrong, and that the public should become vegetarian. The public has responded to the stop eating animals sign by in a way competing against it, putting up other forms of graffiti right next to it. Part of the “eating animals” sign has also been ripped off, obviously showing that someone did not agree with this message.
I feel that people should be allowed to express how they feel and show others what they believe in, but where is there a place that one can actually do this? This relates back to the ongoing discussion we have in class about is there really public space? I think there is “public space” per say, but there are rules and laws we must abide by in this space. There may be places that are called public space, but that does not mean that the public are free to do whatever they want there. Therefore, public space is just a term that has come to be, not an actual place where people are fully free to express themselves how they want.
