Page 2276 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 15 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL: Except Mr Moore, quite right; as usual, he is different. The question becomes the need to recognise approved street art as a legitimate form of artistic expression. I do not support the idea that graffiti necessarily has an important place in the lives of the members of the Canberra community. It probably does have an important place in the lives of some members of the Canberra community, but I believe that the MPI was a little wide. It is going too far to suggest that all members of the Canberra community are concerned with street art. Quite frankly, many people just wish it would go away.
I am sure that Ms Szuty was not intending to speak out in support of any old form of graffiti, regardless of its destructive qualities. The MPI gives us an opportunity to distinguish between wanton destruction and the evolution of artistic expression amongst people who currently do not have that capacity to express themselves. There is obviously a need to distinguish between pure and simple vandalism and approved street art, and I support the MPI in so far as it refers to that form of artistic expression.
All graffiti, as far as I know it, starts out as an assault on somebody else's property, whether it be private property or taxpayers'. Much of it is simply destructive. A paper published by the Melbourne Metropolitan Train Network states:
The only rational reason for responding to malicious damage is when it impacts on organisational effectiveness.
That is an interesting statement. It continues:
The simplest example is when the damage prevents the operation of the asset at normal acceptable levels. Incidences such as smashed equipment, safety signs painted out, advertising disfigured, et cetera, are very clear examples.
Mr Lamont: But that is vandalism.
MRS CARNELL: Yes, that is vandalism. These statements quite clearly show that we should not be supporting any sort of vandalism, as perhaps a literal interpretation of the MPI would suggest. Quite often, graffiti is simply vandalism which destroys the usefulness of a public asset. I do not believe that anybody here would support that sort of thing.
There is much more to it than that. It is not just the impairment of functionality that raises concerns; it is also the question of aesthetics and private property. Quite clearly, people have a right to the protection from destruction of what is their own property, even if that destruction is the result of somebody else's artistic endeavours. This is quite fundamental. I have a right to keep my well-painted grey, pink or white shop or house the way I like it, and not have black letters or whatever painted all over it.
Mr Lamont: Hear, hear! Your house looks nice like that.
MRS CARNELL: It does, too. I do not think I could support the notion that graffiti should be allowed anywhere, regardless of whose property it might be on and regardless of how beautiful that graffiti might be. I am sure that that is not what Ms Szuty has said.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .