Evidence
"Whether its art or vadalism, graffiti poses a problem"
Taken from the Ballarat Courier on June 17, 2012
Graffiti; art or vandalism? The question polarises opinion and leads to endless argument focused on self justification or retribution rather than solutions. What is clear is that graffiti poses a problem.
Advocates of public art extol the spontaneous creativity and diversion of otherwise reckless artistic energy.
This may well be so but at the other extreme; spray painting public walls with signatures or tags is about as creative aa dog that defecates on the street; a physical compulsion done without thought or consideration of consequence.
While there may be some memorable and even challenging street art around, for every Bansky there are a thousand morons. A short walk around town indicates the majority of this public display is devoid of any artistic merit.
Given Ballarat is full of buildings and monuments of genuine lasting value it is not surprising the community is outraged when these cultures clash. The tagging of the recently refurbished arch of Victory some months ago represents a low point and understandable backlash of public opinion.
From countless precedents, it is clear despite the best intentions of police and their Operation Centaur that punitive control is not likely to prove a long-term solution.
So is legal graffiti in designated places the solution? Many would argue it sends the wrong message and merely encourages graffiti in undesignated or undesired places.
Others would point out that by eliminating its illegality you take away the risk and the thrill that enervates its worst exponents.
Even public art must have controls. Sculptures, murals and many forms of public art are shortlisted, assessed and commissioned.
While some would maintain this is merely hierarchical control of expression, it could be equally argued that the process is aimed at ascertaining the best result; to distinguish merit. The problem with graffiti as a form of public art is it represents the ultimate egalitarian free-for-all and that includes a
distinct lack of quality control. Everyone has to look at it but its exponents
largely represent a narrow milieu of society; males aged from 13 to 20.
There are exceptions and it is encouraging to hear that some exponents
recognise that along with designated public space comes the responsibility of
quality control and the discipline of self policing. It may not be the solution
but it may well be part of it."
I think this article shows some good points, about legal graffiti walls becomming the solution or "eliminating it's iligiality". I also agree with the fact that graffiti does have a lack of control yet I think that helps makes up what graffiti is about.
Graffiti; art or vandalism? The question polarises opinion and leads to endless argument focused on self justification or retribution rather than solutions. What is clear is that graffiti poses a problem.
Advocates of public art extol the spontaneous creativity and diversion of otherwise reckless artistic energy.
This may well be so but at the other extreme; spray painting public walls with signatures or tags is about as creative aa dog that defecates on the street; a physical compulsion done without thought or consideration of consequence.
While there may be some memorable and even challenging street art around, for every Bansky there are a thousand morons. A short walk around town indicates the majority of this public display is devoid of any artistic merit.
Given Ballarat is full of buildings and monuments of genuine lasting value it is not surprising the community is outraged when these cultures clash. The tagging of the recently refurbished arch of Victory some months ago represents a low point and understandable backlash of public opinion.
From countless precedents, it is clear despite the best intentions of police and their Operation Centaur that punitive control is not likely to prove a long-term solution.
So is legal graffiti in designated places the solution? Many would argue it sends the wrong message and merely encourages graffiti in undesignated or undesired places.
Others would point out that by eliminating its illegality you take away the risk and the thrill that enervates its worst exponents.
Even public art must have controls. Sculptures, murals and many forms of public art are shortlisted, assessed and commissioned.
While some would maintain this is merely hierarchical control of expression, it could be equally argued that the process is aimed at ascertaining the best result; to distinguish merit. The problem with graffiti as a form of public art is it represents the ultimate egalitarian free-for-all and that includes a
distinct lack of quality control. Everyone has to look at it but its exponents
largely represent a narrow milieu of society; males aged from 13 to 20.
There are exceptions and it is encouraging to hear that some exponents
recognise that along with designated public space comes the responsibility of
quality control and the discipline of self policing. It may not be the solution
but it may well be part of it."
I think this article shows some good points, about legal graffiti walls becomming the solution or "eliminating it's iligiality". I also agree with the fact that graffiti does have a lack of control yet I think that helps makes up what graffiti is about.
Reflection
I loved this reasearch project because the use of personal devises was so exciting and fun.