Page 4356 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have raised a series of scenarios which even yet do not fully address the difficulties which confront especially young artists when they approach adults in authority for permission to legally practise their chosen form of art. There is the probability of young people needing the permission of a variety of people before they paint, and even then police officers may not be aware that artists are painting legal works and may question and interrupt work in progress. Then again there is the question of community prejudice against street art, based on its bold and often alien imagery.
There certainly is a need for coordination of all the aspects of aerosol art. Artists need to be given a clear idea of where they are allowed to paint, what conditions are set for each of the assets available for painting, what preparation is needed for each type of asset, and where they can apply for funding or sponsorship, if needed. It is also important that the police be kept informed of what works are in progress, to ensure that young people going about their business legally are not mistaken for "bombers". This art form is not going to go away: It is thriving and providing an artistic outlet for many talented young people. What a coordination unit would do would be to pick up on a growing phenomenon, channel the energies of young people who have artistic talent, and lessen the frustration - and therefore the amount of illegal "bombing" around town - by making the process of finding legal spaces simpler and more open.
You will note, Madam Speaker, that the second paragraph of my motion refers to community consultation. I feel that the community should be asked to identify those assets that it feels should be left in pristine condition. Thinking laterally by narrowing the assets which need constant cleaning, we could possibly afford anti-graffiti paint on those assets, allowing the others to be decorated, and to celebrate what it is to be artistic and Canberran. I feel that consultation should commence with an identification of the assets involved and discussion with the key interest groups. In the case of the younger artists, these include youth workers, community centres and schools. There will be some people who feel that their "undecorated" Canberra is at risk; but, as I will argue in more detail shortly, I feel that it is better to have decorated, rather than defaced, public assets.
I feel that it is important that we set ourselves a target for achieving our aims in such an exercise. I am happy to provide as much information as I have at my disposal to help the coordinating unit, including the name and contact number of the police officer who coordinated a spray art project in Brisbane, the contact names and numbers for the Gosnells Council in Western Australia, which runs a spray art program, and articles on the other successful programs that celebrate public art. By establishing a coordinating unit now, and getting the identification of assets under way as a priority, we give a signal to our street artists that the ACT Legislative Assembly is responsive to their needs.
I would now like to explore my reasons for believing that adopting this motion could have a positive effect on the youth of Canberra in particular. I would like to quote from a paper delivered recently to the Queensland Police Department and the Queensland Government on a project entitled "the legal street art project". The project was conducted between August 1991 and August 1992 in an effort to combat a growing problem in Brisbane - illegal street art, graffiti. Writers were not only defacing public assets but also putting their lives at risk by such behaviours as hanging onto the outside of trains while they were moving and doing "pieces" in railway tunnels, where there are not only moving trains but also high voltage wires.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .