Recently, the state government here in WA announced a project to clean the streets of graffiti. Apart from the point that this will never work, they are just providing a blank canvas for all the graffiti artists, graffiti art is awesome, and it has in various forms been around for ages!

Now I may be saying this due to my age (24) but I absolutely love it, and especially the fact that it is done public places like at train stations and on city walls.

I will agree that what is called tagging, whereby the artist merely scribbles his name in his own handstyle, is not aestheticallly pleasing at all. The ability to produce complicated pieces is what separates the tagger from the graffiti artist and where the artist has invested time and skill into what he is doing it should not be removed. Here is a good example of what I am talking about as being aesthetically pleasing:

http://www-atdp.berkeley.edu/Studentpages/cflores/picture3.JPEG

But all too often this sort of art gets lumped into the same pile as tagging and therefore is removed from our city streets (as is happening in WA). Graffiti is a way of reclaiming the public space and can be political in this sense, but it also distracts us from all the marketing/advertising that we are saturated with, and is something that on a train trip I would rather see than a billboard advertising a product. Legaly or illegaly done, I say we leave it.

I dont have a problem where it is a picture or interesting graphic, and is on public property. Scribbling is stupid, and private property should be respected as such. Yes, it does have the ability to brighten up the streets, and governing bodies would be able to contribute to the better type of graffiti (artwork) by promoting competitions with prizes and the like for particular locations.

Thanks for your response CoutryGal. I guess though, it just depends on how you define it. One person may love what another hates.

Graffiti has been recognised as an art form and is on display in many galleries, however it is interesting to note that graffiti art spawned from tagging in the late 60s/early 70s, and most graffiti artists also tag (i know a few personally). How we can separate one from the other is a difficult problem and many would say to get rid of everything. Others have argued that legalising some areas for graffiti is a good idea. However it could also be argued that this is merely encouragement and leads to more instances of it being put up on private property.

Interestingly enough many now famous graffiti artists in the US say that they began with tagging and then moved on to art because the only other choice they had to gain the respect of their peers was through crime and drugs.

I love seing a building with a peice on it rather than just a plain painted wall. If I ever own a house then I would like to see a nice peice of graffiti on it.

Dont see why we cant pay the good ones to put up pieces in public places. plenty would be on the dole anyway, so we might as well pay them for doing something rather than nothing! I keep my stance on private property. However, if private citizens wanted to pay graffiti artists to paint their fences, then why not. Personally I prefer a nice white picket fence, but then I'm a conservative from the bush (although not that old - I'm not yet 30 either). The cities are dreary places anyway (at least they are to those of us that prefer blue skies and open plains), so I think they could do with some brightening up!

I think graffiti is a good thing for society as well, for it's artistic and cultural merits. What becomes objectionable and causes outrage is when the graffiti is put on something that is valued or artistic in it's own right and is then tarnished by grafitti. Of course then there are those people who object to any expression of culture that doesn't align with their values, but they should be ignored completely if they are unwilling to compromise and meet at halfway.

Steel, have you got an example to speak of when you say that graffiti has been put up over something already artistically valuable?

I am just curious because the fact that graffiti is done in public places is what I like the most and as I said it is abouit reclaiming our public space through the use of art.

Not really. But I know it would piss off a lot of people (things like nice architectural buildings or surfaces, sculptures etc...). Otherwise you don't want to know ;-) ...well...there was a recent sacred relic in Scotland that was defaced. Absolutely inexcusable. However I thought the Sydney Opera House "No War" sign was a worthy political statement in the face of a criminal invasion and well worth the price. The SOH was easily cleaned anyway

I've been taking the train a bit lately. I don't mind most of the graffiti. It's certainly better than the blank brick walls and industrial landscapes you see. I notice many local councils have started getting people to paint electricity boxes etc on the street, in a manner very similar to graffiti, just without the big name. It's all good.

Something else which I think makes our urban landscape more interesting is stenciling. This is where the artist gets a stencil, a picture usually and maybe some words underneath, and they just spray paint over it relly quickly so that the imprint is left on the surface. I like these too and I have seen many creative designs.

These might be a bit more controversial though because given the speed at which they can be done, they are easily put up everywhere. Indeed, near my local Ezy-Plus 24 hour deli there is a stencil on an electrial box of a naked woman. Because of the speed at which they can be put up stencils have often been used to spread a political message. But again I think that it makes for a more interesting environemnt. I enjoy seeing anonymous and random peices of art and messages like this on my daily trips around the city.

A good example of a stencil and one that I liked is here:
http://www.stencilrevolution.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=58716

Thanks for your input and I welcome more!

The little messages I like are the christian ones that you sometimes see in toilets. Jesus Saves, Jesus is coming soon, will you be ready? That kind of thing. I think they can be life changing if youre open at the time.

The toilet graffitti is great. You see some interesting poetry. It gives you something to while waiting that doesn't require a lot of time (like a newspaper or novel).

I have never seen graffiti art with a Christian content Gibo, and I would be surprised if I ever saw some. If you care to enlighten me otherwise id be happy to check it out if you have a link though.

If people like graffiti, then why is it getting lumped in the bag with tagging and getting removed in WA? This is not fair and an artist should be able to express him/her self... Any thoughts on how I could have an impact? Petition maybe?

Gibo, your posts amuse me in the way that you so steadfastly stick to your guns even when you might be wrong. Cheers mate.

I can't remember his name now but for a few decades some bloke in Sydney took to writing the word 'eternity' in the most beautiful copperplate in all sorts of public places. That would have appeal for Gibo, but it was one of those things that started out as nothing but became an important cultural icon in itself.

It had everything - mystery because for a long time nobody knew who was doing it, aesthetic beauty in the handwriting and the kind of message that gives you something to think about.

I, too, think that graffitti deserves to be appreciated. Since when was it government's job to be the art police?

> If people like graffiti, then why is it getting lumped in the bag with tagging and getting removed in WA? This is not fair and an artist should be able to express him/her self...

I'm pretty sure that has something to do with politicians and the media. Prompted by an incident which a citizen might find objectionable (the more sensational the more $$$ for the papers and votes for the politicians), it blows out of proportion and it's suddenly about banning it completely and that it's a scourge of society. Most of it is based on making people emotionally outraged rather than a discussion amongst democratic equals on how to reach a compromise or solution. Local councils can be very corrupt. They grow arrogant and attract the kind of people that love to assert power and world view over others.

graffiti is a good topic when the pasha bulka was stranded on newcastle beach i should of got my spray can out and wrote the forgotten australians victims of rape and abuse by the employees of the states run institutions ,we are the forgotten australians where we suffered at the hands of people the australian goverment employed , orphanages ,girls homes, boys homes , remand centres , foster homes, out of home care , these are the things the australian goverment are trying to cover up and the public should know this , speak out mr howard or mr rudd as this maybe a real chance for yo to have the real votes and then you will be able to speak of the truth of which we suffered,

D.Funkt,
Catchya writing on my wall be careful.

Graffiti is a bloody eyesore and we should adopt Singapores approach to flogging vandals with a piece rattan.

I do agree there is a diff between mindless taggers and an artist however there must be a better outlet for these young artists than to cost taxpayers big bucks to cover up what is essentially vandalism no matter how appealing it is to some.

I see new tags on the kwinana freeway train line after a day. Graff artists despise sanctioned walls and generally grow out of it however this does not help the fact that some person has to clean up after them.

Centrelink would go a long way if they were to stop payments for 6 months to anyone found defacing public property.

Whats your address SCOTTY? Nah, Just kidding.

Sorry to say but your post only generates further enthusiasm for me in relation to graffiti art. I like the fact that its there even though you may prefer it not to be, and I like the fact that you may ask, when looking at the art, "who did this?" That sort of question leads to "why did they do this, and what is the meaning of this peice?"

Reclaiming public space anonymously like that and making the passer by ask questions is precisely what graffiti art should be about and adds an interesting and culturally valuable addition to our urban landscape.

Nuturing young people's artistic talents in this way also diverts their attention away from anti social behaviour, as is being discussed in the other thread entitled "Anger in our youth, where will it stop?"

A proposed answer to the quandry.

Those who like graffiti and think that it serves a valuable purpose register their preferences in a public register.

Graffiti artists who don't wish to intefere with others property without consent can use the property of those on the register as they so desire.

Owners of property not on the register who's property is impacted with by graffiti can either claim for cleanup or rental on the damaged property (according to their preference) from those who like graffiti.

A win win situation. The artists have a ready supply of properties to mark, property owners are not subjected to costs and damage associated with unlawful use of their property and those who like graffiti get it close to home.

R0bert

Thats an awesome idea but it will never come to fruition. Who, apart from a small minority, would want graffiti art on their property? Also, what about public buildings? Traditionally graffiti art is painted on bridges over rail lines and the like, which is public property. Can we put graffiti on parliament house if the government says graffiti is acceptable on commonwealth and state government property? You have to draw the line somewhere, and if this line proves to be too restrictive to those who want to express themselves then graffiti art will continue to be painted all over the place without any regard for who's property it is.

Great idea, except for the bit where you expect people to voluntarily put their names on a list to pay for the cleanup of someone else's graffitti.

One of my old employers used to allow the neighbourhood kids to use the carpark for skateboarding etc over the weekend, on the assumption that having people there would act as an extra security blanket. For industrial buildings that are locked up properly but abandoned overnight and don't have an external perimeter like a fence, that might work for graffitti artists. Some of these people are very territorial.

I'd agree that not many people would willingly take responsibility for the consequences of graffiti or nominate their own assets for uncontrolled access by graffiti artists. That would suggest that not many people really believe in the value of it. It's OK when it happens to someone else or when others pay for the cleanup,

Stangely enough I appear to be on a number of lists which cause me to have to pay for the clean up of graffiti and security measures to try prevent graffiti and protect graffiti artists from harm.

- I'm a tax payer so I pay for the cleanup of graffiti on pubic buildings.
- I'm a rate payer so I pay for the cleanup of graffiti on council property.
- I have an electricity account so I pay for the cleanup of graffiti on electricity network assets.
- I'm a QR customer so part of my ticket price is for the cleanup of graffiti on QR assets and have my view as I travel each day interrupted by the various markings on the windows of trains.
- At a guess my phone bill is also impacted by graffiti as are my various insurance policies and most other pieces of shopping that I do.

One place to start might be to place anybody caught doing graffiti on the list. Make their car, bike, home legally accessable to anybody who wants to do some art/tagging of their own choosing. Let them aquire a debt for the cleanup of graffiti (or the use of others property for otherwise unwanted graffiti).

Shift the consequences of graffiti to those who like and value graffiti.

R0bert