Page 2277 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 15 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is also the question of people's individual likes and dislikes. The problem with what Mr Moore says is that some people like some things; some people like others.
Mr Lamont: And some people just like everything.
MRS CARNELL: And some people just like everything. I realise that there are forms of graffiti that can actually be considered artistic. As I said, all graffiti starts out as an assault on somebody else's property, which is illegal; but over time a certain sophistication and artistic style has developed. I am sure that we can find a place for this, but it must be in its proper place.
Mr Lamont: The Southern African Liberation Centre.
MRS CARNELL: That is not very pretty. If we are talking about finding a place for this kind of art, it should be approved and it should be capable of being appreciated by the wider community. We must remember that people have different tastes. Even where we do approve community space for the purposes of street art or graffiti, we must also take into account that we must not offend the wider community. Despite the suggestion in the MPI that graffiti plays an important part in the lives of the members of the Canberra community, I think many people in the community do not share this sentiment.
The dislike, aesthetically speaking, that people express towards today's graffiti is also not necessarily baseless or reactionary. For instance, it has been said that attitudinal surveys of passengers on the London Underground indicated that extensive vandalism and graffiti were seen as indicative of a lack of control over environs in and around the stations, invoking passenger insecurity and fear, particularly amongst women. I think that argument can be raised about underpasses and other things. More generally, people often see graffiti as a sign of decay and as a sign of a lack of resources being spent on upkeep. I do not think we should discredit these sentiments or reject them out of hand. Nonetheless, I do think we can find places for street and community art, and we should take a positive approach to this. Let us not be sanctimonious about this issue. Hoardings around construction sites could be vastly improved with a little approved community art.
We can actually prevent graffiti in bus-shelters, as Mr Connolly appropriately said, by allowing them to be decorated by community artists or schoolchildren. Studies have shown that plain concrete will be defaced substantially quicker than appropriately decorated bus-shelters, or whatever else we have in mind. I know from personal experience that the quickest way to have your shopfront defaced is to have it plain white. If you have something on it, it lasts substantially longer, and I know that that is what ACTION have found. Telecom Australia has also recently announced a program whereby community artists can paint one face of a telephone booth. Again, I think this is legitimate and positive. In other words, we need a positive approach to this issue and we need to encourage and investigate ways to allow the legitimate expression of community and street art.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .