As I ride the train into town I see graffiti covering fences, buildings and other areas. If I see professional athletes competing their uniforms are covered with advertisements for various enterprises. It is now approaching Christmas and lawns and houses are getting decorated with kitschy objects. Home-owners are even encouraged in this activity. Buses are covered with injunctions to eat, drink or buy.

I have tried to imagine a world in which all this optical clutter would disappear. What pleasure do the graffiti artists get? Would fewer people buy Sprite if they didn't advertise on buses? Could professional athletes play their games if their uniforms were restricted to their name, number and team insignia? They do so in the US.

Am I the only one bothered by visual junk?

I'm so with you on the optical junk. I'd like to add the clutter of booths and stalls in shopping malls, outside and inside. AND the constant blaring music, radios and whatnot. In shops, in malls, in restaurants.

My theory is that Australians are so overwhelmed by the space and silence our land has we fill our immediate surrounding up so we are not so reminded with how empty our continent and the sky above is and how insignificant we are.

Dear David,

I think that Ogden Nash summed it up
rather well:

"I think that I shall never see,
A billboard lovely as a tree,
Perhaps, unless the billboards fall,
I'll never see a tree at all."

I should read more Ogden Nash.

I see it a little differently.

At times when I've been on trains in and out of cities in Australia, I've seen many displays of graffiti on walls and so forth.
I consider them an expression of creativity, more glorious in its expression as the stereotypical graffiti artist is seen as somehow lacking in respect or creativity.
But even such delinquents have a desire to express themselves through art. And though some lift their noses at it (and I don't think much of the simplistic tags) I think some of these graffiti pieces are rather brilliant in their design and shading.

All the more beautiful because of their drab location and the fact that the artist is not doing it for money or fame, but merely because they wish to create something.

As far as the broader issue of clutter goes, I don't see it like that - in the cities, it can feel that way. But that's an expression of what cities are and the nature of man. Yes, there's billboards advertising beer or cola, there are signs everywhere, buses are plastered with advertisements advertising everything from financial services to nicotine gum. It's part and parcel of our human need to communicate in a myriad of forms, be it for love or money.

It's the visual equivalent of the chattering in a busy city square.

When it all seems to much, then I can escape to less crowded surroundings and see the countryside. That's the flip side of the coin.

So I don't see it as 'clutter'. I see it as the communication that bleeds from us. If I want blank spaces, I leave the city.

I've seen cities with a multitude of blank spaces - usually they're poor, drab lifeless places. They lack that visual chattering. The crowded images are a symptom of a vibrant city.

In a crowded city, I think the presence of blank spaces is a worrying sign.

TRTL, your creativity may be a good thing, if it is restricted to the property of those creating.

It has no place whatsoever on the property of those who don't want it. Grafitti vandals are antisocial, & encouraging them is pretty close to the same thing.

I think the most vibrant city that I've
ever visited was Mexico City. And, that
was a few years ago.

The murals on the walls were dynamic, each had a
story to tell.

I remember the impression the murals made on me.
They decorated the drabest of buildings at times,
yet the murals had a life of their own.

As for advertising - I guess what TRTL says -
is true, it is a way of life in big cities.
But, it could be more creative.

Advertising in sporting events was driven home
to me with this year's Melbourne Cup.

I remember watching the Melbourne Cup on
TV this year and seeing the jockeys being presented
one by one, each of them wearing a cap with the
letters, "Emirates," on it.

Each jockey wore his cap for the cameras. All except
one jockey, who preferred to hold his cap in his hand.

To me the Melbourne Cup is a special event, and I
confess that I resent it being presented as,
'The Emirates Melbourne Cup.'

It should remain simply, 'The Melbourne Cup,' sponsored
by Emirates.

Call me old-fashioned in this regard.

As I drive or ride my bicycle to work I see trees and birds and natural and humanised landscapes. I see a magnificent array of visual images. Some billboards and other advertising make up part of it, but they don’t detract from the magnificence of the gnarly old Moreton Bay ashes on the beachfront at Rowes Bay or the red-tailed black cockies munching on sea almonds on the edge of the road two metres away from speeding traffic.

Who cares about the urban clutter of advertisements and graffiti?

I mean, that’s just the nature of the city. If you don’t like it, then get out of town on the weekends and enjoy the real world….or relocate to a small country town…or even a big regional centre.

There is actually a world out there, not too far from any urban nightmare, even from inner Sydney or Melbourne, where there is no optical clutter. Go visit it some time.

Now lets see a tree being God's creation and a billboard man's effort. I have to agree with you for a change Davidf.

Hasbeen, you state "Grafitti vandals are antisocial, & encouraging them is pretty close to the same thing."

Well, wouldn't you be antisocial if that was the prevailing attitude toward you?

I agree in relation to the graffiti of private property and don't condone that vandalism. In terms of public property, I think it's a little more vague.

Firstly, this is public property, and thus is owned by all the taxpayers. I'm not so sure there's a consensus here, so you can't rule it out completely, nor can you condone it it all circumstances.

When a piece of public property is vandalised, I guess it comes back to whether the vandalism represents artwork in the eyes of the public. If more people think it looks good than bad, then yes, I'm okay with it. It's that simple.
Call me an anarchist of sorts if you will, but I don't necessarily rate going through the proper channels as a necessity in every instance when it comes to something like this.

To my way of thinking, one of the core elements of graffiti artwork has been a rebellion against the ever increasing expansions of rules, requirements and impositions by society at large.

So, it's part and parcel of it. If these kids are spending their time labouring over a piece of art that has taken skill and effort, and it's in a public place and more people appreciate it than don't, then to hell with the required procedure.

The world would be a much better place if more people spontaneously created public art for the sake of it.

Private property of course, is an entirely different matter and I agree with you on that score.

Dear TurnRightThenLeft,

As a member of the public I object to the graffiti placed on public property. An individual or group of individuals has taken it upon themselves to deface property which belongs to all of us. Most graffiti are scrawls which I do not regard as art.

On the other hand I would not object to the destruction of an object of public property such as a bomber which is going to drop bombs on civilian targets.

Inconsistent? Yes.

I'm with TRTL on this.

Probably because I have always been happiest in large cities, the larger the better, and the closer to the heart the better.

To me, people who choose to live in the city, but then complain that it is i) noisy ii) crowded and iii) strewn with "visual junk" have chosen the wrong location.

In recent years, residents of Milsons Point complained of the noise from the re-opened Luna Park. Despite the fact that Luna Park was there first, and they had chosen to live next door, they strong-armed the government to close it down.

The campaign was led by that well-known visual polluter (Blues Point Tower, anyone?) Harry Seidler, whose main complaint was the noise that the occupants of the big dipper made as they went upside-down, outside his window.

In other words, he objected to the sound of people enjoying themselves.

Cities are cities, thank goodness, and not concrete gardens of tranquillity. And one man's clutter is another man's evidence of life, movement and change. Some feel threatened by it, some believe it is an essential ingredient.

I tend to agree with Pedicles/TRTL
What many people forget is that there is a big difference between the motivation/skill between a vandal/Tagger and a graffiti artist.

Don't forget some people spend a lot of money on their property only to have it’s defaced by some self indulgent individual who sprays some ascetically infantile cult scrawl simply to prove their perverted sense identity. To me there is no difference between a tagger and a vandal who destroys tombstones particularly historic one.

Graffiti artists are essentially different and under some circumstances they enhance the boring backs of buildings along train lines with real creative art.
Likewise the clever graffiti who enhance a bill board with wit e.g. The Richmond Church who had a sign that said “what would you do if Jesus came to Hawthorn”
One wit wrote “move Peter Hudson (a full forward hero for Hawthorn FC at the time) to centre half forward. “ It gained world wide coverage and drew attention to the sign the priest was happy and left it like that for months.
My favourite was the Chelsea ( England) Interflora sign It read “say it with Flowers” some wit added “send her a Trifid” (for the young that refers to a book movie of the time “ the day of the Trifid” ( an invasion of alien ‘ man eating plants’) He he :-)

Dear Pericles,

Yes, cities are cities. However, I still feel that
some city planners (and local councils) could
do a better job of it and not allow indiscriminate
development which is out of character with the
local environment.

Such as for example, permiting culturally
unsuitable practices, market-stalls,
inappropriate-shops, which add to the clutter and
the mess often seen in certain concentrated areas.

Mark me down as another one who agrees with TRTL and Pericles. We live in a fairly new housing estate and a more drab, less stimulating visual environment I have yet to see. Give me a vibrant city any day.

On graffiti on public property, in my view it's no more vandalism than our councils leasing public space out to advertisers. Given the choice between art, even bad art, and ads, I choose the bad art.

Foxy, Mexico City is a vibrant city. Remember the huge squares and spaces with not a single booth? The busy, busy boulevards with Mariachi bands? People promanading, people watching people and people having fun.

For vibrant cities with little visual junk and clutter overlaid with incessant loud poor quality music blaring from loudspeakers as is often found in our malls and inner cities visit Paris, Boston, Amsterdam, Vienna, to name but a few. Much, much more crowded than Australia's but still manage city squares, inner city parks and real music.

Brisbane's inner city mall has hardly a square inch that is not taken up with some rent paying booth. It's nigh impossible to see and be seen. And what's the point of being in a city if it's not for people? We're disappearing amongst the junk.

Dear Anansi,

I fell in love with Mexico City.
I loved the Indian and Spanish heritage.
The National Museum of Anthropology with
its massive carvings and portrayals of
Indian life. The Metropolitan Cathedral
with its many chapels, the Constitution
Plaza, surrounded by historical landmarks,
ranging from Aztec ruins to palaces.

The Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe,
north of the City.

And much, much more.

Most of all I loved the richness of the
culture, and the people.

Some cities simply draw you in, Mexico City,
was definitely one of those for me.

Yeah. I'm with TRTL, Examinator etc. here.

I used to catch the train into Brisbane from the Sunny Coast: it approached through an old, industrial part of the city. I used to look forward to it twice a day. The mixture of brilliant graffiti, valiant little plants struggling to take back their space, abandoned and rather Art House-looking bits and pieces, the naked backs of old houses...it gave my imagination something to feast on every day.

I love the tranquil depths of a rain forest, or the sweeping perfection of a long coastline too. But a city, to me, mustn't be all mirror glass, soaring architecture and buildings whose interiors smell of chemically manufactured Sea Mist or Flower Garden(like parts of Hong Kong Island). It should also have little bits of its frayed petticoat peeking out from under its Sunday dress - graffiti, rusting tins cans, huge billboards, skateboard on pavements...the whole joyous, overcrowded, inconvenient lot!

I thank all who disagreed with me. They have given me something to think about.

I'm with TRTL and Pericles on graffiti in cities.
Councils could probably save time and money, too, if they leave graffiti artists be.

Unless a piece is offensive, there's no real point in cleaning it or painting over it. Blank spaces won't stay blank for long.
What's the worst that could happen?

Perhaps apart from some areas, let graffers take over the blank spaces on non-private property like walls (even trains).
Even just as an experiment- let's see what happens over a couple of years.
Then evaluate how much money was saved over this period?
Does the city look worse at the end of the experimental period?

Yes, some graffiti is ugly, and mere tagging is boring, but everything is temporary anyway.

I wonder if there would be some kind of space invader war between the graffiti artists and the graffiti vandals.
Graffiti artists would, I assume, naturally show respect for each other's tagged pieces, but vandals will be there regardless, whether the wall is blank or not.

I'm annoyed by litter more than anything else- litter bugs and tossers really spoil the environment.

Graham,

You're too hard on yourself.

Dear David,

This is my final say on billboards:
(tongue-in-cheek)

"Why I like Sylvester is because he acts so tough,
He's well built, good looking, and quite often rough,
He's a guy who never loses, defeat's not his game,
He's a real Italian hero who's definitely not lame.

Rocky, Rambo, Cobra, are names by which he's known,
But the best one of them all is none other than Stallone,
Put the two together, Sylvester and Stallone,
And what you get is the toughest fighter the screen has ever known.

Fighting for good causes, for justice, to be free,
Fighting for the underdog, for folks like you and me,
And as we leave the theatres, we look up at the sky,
And up there on the billboard,
It's him, oh, what a guy!"

Dear Foxy,

Last time I put my tongue in cheek I bit it.

Dear David,

Last time you put your tongue in cheek you bit it?

Well, you must have more teeth than me.
(hee hee hee).