Page 2267 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 15 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are some people who rubbish the idea of studying pop culture, and there was a debate in the Canberra Times in recent weeks over a fairly interesting set of lectures called "Madonna studies". This was not an erudite treatise on the impact on various cultures of the image of the Madonna of the Christian religion; it was an examination of the phenomenon of Madonna the singer. I am not an expert; however, I am pleased that I live in a society where people find it important to study the past and the present to help us understand our options for the future. Madonna studies could well be enhanced by some scholarly concentration on graffiti; but, while we continue to ignore the need for this avenue of expression by young people and while we continue to group all graffiti under the heading of an offence under the Crimes Act, we are missing an opportunity to create a more understanding and accepting community. It has always puzzled me that, while people may have no exposure to one area of culture they do not participate in, they can be critical of others who choose to do so. However, as often happens, once they gain an understanding of the alternative view they become more tolerant and accepting.
What appears to be at the heart of the understanding of graffiti, in my view, is that as a society we have not come to grips with the notion of adolescence. The phenomena we are grappling with in so many areas - health, unemployment, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, access to education - did not exist in our parents' adolescence. There were children and there were adults. The rites of passage were observed, and to be a young person was to be an apprentice adult.
The article already quoted from the Canberra Times puts the emergence of a youth culture variously between the 1930s and the 1950s, but it was in the 1950s that we saw the emergence of the idea of rebellious youth. Ever since then there has been in train a long process of our society attempting to come to grips with the needs of young people. We have recognised the special needs of some of the adolescent population by changes to our education system and work practices. However, if we are to have adolescents who grow up being able to express themselves, not just in conventional ways but across a wide spectrum, we must recognise all attempts at expression and communication as legitimate and give young people access to the means to make their mark. Let us give people responsibility for spaces where their art form can be recognised for its talent and the skill it involves.
We might also try looking at the messages conveyed by other forms of graffiti, before we clean them off or paint over them, to see whether they show any trends or indicate any other fears, concerns or positive feelings among our youth. A regime of tolerance will achieve more in the longer term by channelling into positive ventures the energy currently put into defying the law. As I stated earlier, there will not be an end to communication graffiti or the defiant anti-establishment graffiti. I would not want to live in a society where children grow up feeling that the establishment has got it right all the time. We would then be living in a world of non-thinking people.
We can always improve as a society. By letting our young people express themselves in as wide a range of ways as possible, we are encouraging them to own their community, to participate, and we therefore are accepting of their contribution. Young people do not need to be patronised. However, they do need our assistance as legislators to get access to space to allow them legitimately to carry out their expressive, colourful and skilful work.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .