Sterilising the city
Melbourne is preparing to quarantine graffiti to out-of-the-way back alleys. This is most unwelcome news, because like Aaron and Tony, I quite like street art. I don’t mean some loser scribbling their name on a wall or scratching it into a window; I’m talking about real artists, who invest time, effort and meaning in their works.
In my view, removing graffiti from the more public areas of a city does not “ensure the city maintains its image as clean, safe and welcoming,” as Councillor Wilson claims. Rather, it ensures that graffiti art is wrongfully associated with violent crime and danger. It forces genuine artists to either put their art out of the way where nobody can see it, or in a sterile gallery that destroys its essential public, organic nature. As John says, “Canvas is where stencils go to die.”
Melbourne’s street art is beautiful and awesome. I really enjoy just wandering around the city, trying to recognise the styles of different artists, appreciating the new layer of meaning they bring to the streetscape. (Perth’s got some interesting works around the place, but it would be better if certain people got out there more.) I hope the council doesn’t kill one of the best things about the city.
Unfortunately Robert, if you happen to walk around Melbourne city graffiti is virtually on every flat surface you lay your eyes upon, even the grafitti you call ’street art’. I live 35km north east of the city and I am confronted by graffiti not more than 100m from where I live. mostly tags etc. It’s bloody annoying when people fail to respect other’s property.
Good idea I think.
I’m in the same boat as you, Robert. I appreciate street art (of the non-tag variety), and I’ve thought that Melbourne has a really good selection. Mind you, Melbourne’s pretty arty already – I walked down a random and dingy alley and stumbled into this massive wall-mounted sculpture, all articulated bits and bobs, and then found a plaque saying that it was an official installation! Brilliant!
Something snapped from my last trip: multi-layered graffiti
South Sydney City Council (before it was amalgamated – I don’t know Sydney’s exact policy) had a 24-hour “graffiti hotline” and promised immediate removal of graffiti. I definitely saw less tags around after that, but also less real graf as well. If banning graffiti in some streets and “banishing” it to alleys means that the alley work can be done better, I’d be all for it. Then there’d be even more free galleries to visit.
Scott, I very much doubt that there is significantly more graffiti in Melbourne now than during my last visit, and I didn’t think it was particularly obtrusive then.
My view is that graffiti is unacceptable on the front of buildings or on household fences, but is no problem in alleys — even alleys that are used as thoroughfares. The goal should not be to hide the graffiti altogether.
Tagging should be removed immediately, but elaborate artworks should be allowed to stay for longer (they should be removed eventually to provide a clean slate).
Check out
http://www.banksy.co.uk/menu.html
“Remember crime against property is not real crime. People look at an oil painting and admire the use of brushstrokes to convey meaning. People look at a graffiti painting and admire the use of a drainpipe to gain access.”
Sure, they’re quarantining the graffiti to alleys, but not “back-alleys’. The alleyways of Melbourne are where the life truly is: The Croft Institute, Bennets Lane, and countless other bits and pieces. The installation Casey mentioned is one of about half a dozen or so dotted in alleyways thoughout the city. In the suburbs it might be ugly (as Scott mentions), but in the city the focus will be on removing the pointless and brainless ‘tags’, but encouraging street art in the places best suited for it: Drewery Lane, Russell Place, Tattersall’s Lane, McKillop St, Hardware Lane (up the top end), all crying out for some colour.
Melbourne is a pretty bland city, in terms of architecture and landscaping. Graffiti and other artworks add colour and interest. Melbourne is a city that likes to portray itself as being slightly bohemian – removing graffiti is not going to help cultivate that image.
Leif, that sounds better than I thought. I suspect the Council is trying to put the strongest possible anti-graffiti spin on its policy, which makes it sound harsher than it really is.
I like Melbourne.
I don’t like tags. Actual art is nice.
Perhaps the council will take a discriminating and not a fundamentalist approach to the enforcement of said policy.
Le Driver, how can you say that Melbourne has bland architecture? It has more variety than most other Australian cities (new apartments are changing that quickly though). And the inner suburbs have kept their 100+ year old character better than any other Australian Capital city I’ve seen (ie. Brisbane and Sydney).
The laneways are where most good graffiti is found anyway. As Leif and Le Driver have said, the laneways are where the best graffiti and the best entertainment is found. Very bohemian. Council can wipe graffiti off the main drags, fair enough, but they will NEVER be able to stop the laneways being the art galleries that they they are.
Another few photos of mine
Amsterdam is definitely not a bland city, in any terms, but even so, there are many 17th-century buildings here that are adorned with “street art.” Ditto Venice, Paris, and just about any other European city you could mention.
There is no conceivable way to justify that..
This is disgusting, I think. I mean for fucks sake, how much have corporates taken over public space. At least graff is ‘by the people, for the people’ so to speak.
It is an exceptional form of resistance, expression and a form of public ownership.
I don’t think you can say enough about the merits of graffiti personally.
I live very close to the CBD of Melbourne. A few weeks ago someone and sprayed “LATER GUY” on the footpath in fairly ordinary script, no colour, no style. That got removed within a week, as I think it ought. If someone had reproduced an updated version of the Bayeux Tapestry from the Prince Patrick Hotel to the Baden Powell hotel, that would probably stay.
Hammy,
Say what you like about the merits of graffiti but to most of us it is nothing but an eyesore. Why should those people who own and maintain the property have to put up with its unauthorized installation? If you want to see it in its natural surrounds, I suggest you get together with the artists and cobble together the funds to buy a facade or something of the like, better still, hire some gallery space like most law-abiding artists would. As far as I am concerned, it is one of the biggest eyesores on the contemporary urban landscape. You can’t divorce it from tagging as they are one and the same essentially.
You can’t divorce it from tagging as they are one and the same essentially.
Bollocks.
I think it is reasonable to suggest that you can’t divorce tagging from other graff. How would you draw that line? It is very difficult.
Tagging just doesn’t bother me.
That aside, some of the ‘art’ that is graffiti is that it is done on public spaces. Sure, you could have it in a gallery but a lot of it is lost if you do that. It becomes sterile and looses its rebellion which is part of its appeal.
In fact by keeping it illegal you sustain it in some senses.
You can’t divorce it from tagging as they are one and the same essentially.
Bollocks.
Comment by Robert at 5:22pm on 7 March 2005.
I see you are employing an age old debating technique of the left, Rob.
I explained in my initial post why I thought they were different. Perhaps you could explain why you disagree?
I disagree that you can’t separate tagging from other graff for a couple of reasons (not sure if you were asking me but I thought I’d tell you anyway) .
Firstly, in a legal sense, how would you distinguish? Defacing private (or public) property is just that, not matter what its form is.
Secondly I think you’ll find that most people doing the most artistic stuff also tag and certainly sign their work with a tag – although not necessarily the other way around.
Finally, I think that if you see graff as a form of resistance (which I do) and youth culture then they are both part of the same whole (or hole depending on who you ask).
A tag is a big ‘fuck you, this is our street’. Aesthetics are an issue but not the only one. If you are arguing about the merits of aesthetics then you’re on thin ice, things become far too subjective (for this issue) and things like architecture and stuff start coming up – or worse!
Deface (verb) to deliberately spoil the appearance of something.
So graffiti that spoils an area should go. But graffiti that improves an area would not be defacement, and should be encouraged. This obviously depends on the quality of the graffiti, and the quality of the street in which it has been put. A big ‘fuck you’ in Collins St should be removed. A work of art in Pender Place should stay. This is precisely the point of the new Melbourne City Council policy (the original point of this post, remember?). Remove the shit stuff, and put some colour into those dingy back alleys.
Leif, I certainly take your point but I’m still not convinced that ‘the law’ is capable of such subjectivity.
After all property is 9/10 of the law and putting anything on a private wall is, technically, defacing it. Especially if it is without the premission of the owner. I really can’t see that happening.
But this is the point of the MCC policy: improving public spaces with the owners’ permission. It’s not defacement, it’s art. Yes, the subjectivity may be a problem but this happens with all art (remember the kerfuffle over the anti-semitic exhibition in Degraves St?).
Give it a go, let them paint. Brighten up a dark alley or two.
Just to clarify, I love graff. I full encourage it and have even done the odd stencil my self down the odd alley or two.
The brighter the dark alley the better.
My point is merely one about subjectivity being an issue and that tagging is inseparable from other graff.
…and I also find that graff done with the owners permission tends to be sterile and is often just an advertisement – hence just adding to the branding of public space.
I guess that’s my other key point, graff is inherently rebellion, anti-systemic and provides a sense of public ownership – which adds to why tags and other graff cannot be separated.