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.