Protected Graffiti?

Grafitti has always been associated with rebelliousness, disobedience, and daring. In later years, some have softened their approach to Grafitti, and valued it as a form of artistic expression. However, the fact remains that it is illegal, and it costs local governments all around the world millions of dollars to clean this stuff off public spaces. So, it comes as a surprise that the National Trust of Australia is considering classifying certain Melbourne city laneways as heritage sites, to protect the graffiti that exists there.

“It’s a cultural value. It’s part of the urban fabric”, says Tracey Avery of the National Trust.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/23/2282814.htm

I am sure we will all admit that some of the more ‘mural style’ graffiti is a stunning display of artistic talent, and whoever did it should be encouraged to pursue a career in art. But a lot of the time it is random scribbles, symbols, and ‘tags’ which are a way of teenagers claiming ‘territory’ and notoriety.

The issue here is what message is this sending, and what ramifications this decision will have on those committing graffiti crime? Yes, it is a crime, as it is defacing public property, or private property. With this consideration, is the National Trust inadvertedly encouraging more young people to grafitti? Are they creating a higher cleanup bill for local councils?

“It clearly sends the wrong message that we as a society are going to be acceptable of vandalism and other anti-social behaviour, and that it doesn’t matter that it costs local government over $260 million a year to clean up.” -Scott Hilditch from Graffiti Hurts Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/23/2282814.htm

I have had my front fence grafittied, and it looked terrible. It inconvenienced me and made me have to go out, buy paint, and paint the entire length of my fence. At that time, I was not looking at this person’s artistic genius. Would Ms. Avery from the National Trust stand in awe at grafitti on her front fence? Of course she wouldn’t. She would be cursing the little bastards that did it and order her council representatives to ‘do something about the graiffiti crime in the area’. I don’t think you would find her espousing the wonders of the ‘urban fabric’ then.

If what the National Trust wanted to protect was a commissioned piece of grafitti art that has added to the ‘urban landscape’ and was sanctioned legally as a way of recognising the talents of these unique men and women, then that would be different. But the kids who ‘tag’ people’s front fences will not be giving a right royal toss about the ‘urban fabric.’ All they will see is the green light for them to do whatever they like. A parent sitting down with their teenager chastising them for defacing property will probably be hit with the response, “The National Trust likes it.”

The other side of this is the fact that these people do this form of artwork because it is unconventional. They don’t want to create art the traditional way. They want to secretly do this work, and develop a name for themselves without anyone really knowing who they are. That’s the attraction of grafitti art.

However, we are forgetting one of the most famous grafitti artists of them all, Arthur Stace. This homeless alcoholic spent 40 years writing the word ‘Eternity’ across as many parts of Sydney as he could. He became an icon in Sydney, and his graffiti was immortalised on the Sydney Harbor Bridge as part of the Opening Ceremony of the Sydney Olympics in 2000. He never wanted to be known, but he sure wanted his message to be heard. That same mentality exists amongst today’s grafitti artists.

In a sense, I see both sides of this argument. However, to legitamise vandalism is not only irresponsible, but it opening up a Pandora’s Box that we will find very hard to close.

Enjoy your day.