Auckland: killing off creativity in street art?

Written by Dave Duffin

What a pleasure to introduce our new MORPH friend: Dave Duffin. Lucky for us Dave is a man with a many stringed bow. Among his varied talents as a teacher, chicken keeper, graphic designer, surfer, own-hair cutter and maker of things both practical and beautiful he has added writer to the list with the publication of this piece. Musing on one of his favourite topics, the demise of street art, this article certainly offers food for thought.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}

You've heard of Banksy right?

Yup, by now he's essentially a household name. What's interesting about that is when you contemplate what he did to become famous. He illegally spray painted his name and message on walls all over the world. The key word here is 'illegally'. What he did was against the rules of many countries and cities. He practiced graffiti and became both loved and famous as a result.

Now this to me is where it becomes intriguing.

Why?

Because the majority of people think what Bansky does is an acceptable practice; think of it as 'cool'; and even think of Banksy as a highly skilled artist (which he/she/they are). Many of these same people hate graffiti.

Somehow, along the way what Banksy does has been separated from what people think of as graffiti. Part of this stems from his 'non-graffiti style'. His work is pictures on walls with 'normal' legible writing rather than the indiscernible font recognised as being graffiti. I've heard some people refer to it as 'smart graffiti' which personally I find insensitive but I can understand why they would come to this conclusion. There is almost always a social/political theme in all of Banksy's work. There is also more thought put into this type of work as much of it is pre-made and 'installed'.

What is important is that there are countless other graffiti personalities like Banksy with no fame outside of their 'world'. And that's just what graffiti culture is. It's a community where everyone does what is in essence the same thing but is always presented in different way. It has become clear that many outsiders looking in at this culture find some parts of it acceptable; enjoyable even, while other parts fuel hatred.

I've observed from talking to people about graffiti that it isn't a black and white issue. There is a large grey area in what people think is and isn't acceptable. There are people who think all graffiti is bad and offenders should be treated harshly. Likewise I have met 'writers' who think that there shouldn't be any rules about graffiti at all. In other words anything goes. However, increasingly people will sit somewhere in the middle.

“It's ok so long as it's not on peoples houses”; “I think the creative stuff is ok, but hate the scribbles”; and so on.

Even the writers themselves have a range of standards around this issue. From what I have gathered in conversation with writers there seems to be a number of things that are off limits to most 'serious' writers. Churches, houses, museums and schools are all commonly quoted places that many would never think to 'write' on.

Not only do moral standards vary in the world of graffiti, so too do the intentions and reasons behind why people are writing on walls. The majority will state they enjoy the rush of adrenaline and excitement and almost all will be doing it for 'the fame' or to 'be known'. While this does sound a bit ridiculous it’s worth remembering that everyone, regardless of their particular discipline enjoys recognition. We all want to be thought of by our peers as successful or talented. Graffiti is no different to this. It's just that what is seen as ‘cool’ or acceptable by one group means very little to another. All alternative cultures have had their heyday and the often damaging reputation that comes with such a past. However just as a negative past has often been overcome and a firm place in mainstream society has been gained by surfing and skateboarding for example I see no reason why graffiti can’t be the same? Why not move past the stage of being recognised as gangster vandalism into the mainstream world of accepted art practice? To an extent this evolution has already begun. Banksy, whoever he/she/they are has brought a lot of credibility to the world of graffiti, credibility that grows stronger with every new person that is led to look at street art with new eyes once having ‘met’ Banksy. Which is great - because people creating street art with thought, consideration, innovation and pride deserve public respect, not derision.

The rules of graffiti

The distinction between grades of graffiti presents issues for all cities. How do we deal with this? How can rules and regulations be structured to promote creative street art whilst eliminating what is universally seen as 'the nasty stuff’? Of course we could continue with Auckland’s pretty successful current approach which is to try and destroy street culture and its art form altogether. Auckland used to have a rich graffiti scene where hubs of creativity occurred; there were the (now extinct) oriental markets full of world class street art; Carlaw Park which had become another place of unbounded street art until it was ripped down; train lines that were once lined with colourful paint and more recently the car parks and alley off Symonds St and Poynton Tce. All of these once vibrant places are now either bulldozed or painted an inspiring shade of grey. The cost to society of this approach is not purely financial. Art and culture is the heart and soul of a city. While I’m not proposing a blanket legalisation of all graffiti (although it would be an amazing social experiment), I am suggesting the need for a different approach.

When one thinks of a buzzing urban artistic hub, graffiti is always present in the landscape. New York, Berlin and Melbourne spring to mind. Melbourne is a very interesting place to look at as it is a city synonymous with graffiti. Street art adds character and serves to emphasise the place of all art in the city’s identity. The council regulations enabling this are fascinating. If you have the time read the following link.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/11/1199988583501.html?page=2

The use of two entirely different approaches to graffiti is both confusing and genius. They promote graffiti as being a being a vital part of their city, going so far as to place protection over a couple of Banksy’s illegally installed stencils to protect them, while in the same breath introducing insanely harsh penalties for those caught simply having a can of spray paint in their bag with an instant fine of $550. If graffiti was removed from every wall overnight in Melbourne the city would immediately drop in popularity. Yes, street art is a huge part of Melbourne’s uniqueness.

So what are we to do? For a start I believe they should instantly stop painting the train lines every day. The revenue lost in effectively making these areas look worse is just insanity. That money would be far better spent encouraging errant artists in more sustainable pursuits. Channeling this into funding for murals benefiting business owners and community services? Indeed there are plenty of writers out there desperate for this kind of space. It would be good practice to pay them for their art however many would be happy to just make use of the wall. Pairing up good graffiti artists with local shop owners is a terrific way to get rid of the ‘scribble’ tags, make the community more vibrant and foster the growth of young artists. A terrific example of this is seen on the bar ginger minx on Dominion Road in Auckland shown below.

Also, as mentioned above the Auckland Council needs to recognise a difference in graffiti. It's not all the same, nor is it done for the same reasons. What should really be targeted is tagging on peoples homes and buildings with historical, social and religious significance. Community service seems a fair punishment for the un-permissioned defacing of these buildings, not high fines or jail time. In the big picture, it’s a pretty trivial issue; they drew on something that wasn't theirs. Don't large corporations do that every day? High fines and prison time target the wrong people. The chances of getting caught simply scribbling your name on someone’s house in the middle of the suburbs is very slim. It takes next to no time and there are far less people around. The people that are far more likely to get caught are those doing 'pieces' on the train lines alleyways or motorways in the city. These are the artists like Banksy who Auckland has almost entirely fined into extinction while the scribblers are still scribbling on people’s fences at exactly the same rate.

Auckland also needs to provide places for the creation of street art. People will naturally gravitate toward these areas where their time consuming work can be properly appreciated by peers and the general public. A case for this can be made through the parallel of skate boarding and graffiti. For a long time skateboarders were seen as a general menace by a high percentage of people. Many schools became unofficial skate parks. The creation of excellent skate parks within Auckland has given these people a place to go and do what they love. I truly believe that most graffiti writers would take advantage of these areas as they have in the past when such areas were available.

The beauty of actually providing places for graffiti writers to use is that you can far more easily crack down on places that have been deemed unacceptable. Rules and regulations at best can guide and shape citizens without seeming imposing. People, graffiti writers included, quickly learn the rules and make choices around these. They could choose to 'put a piece up' in an accepted area and have it remain viewed by others for a good period of time; or put it up on an illegal spot, risk community service, and have it removed in no time at all. These places would be best set in alleyways like in Melbourne or on visible walls around the city. Spaces like the Rhubarb lane precinct (pictured) can be such a fantastic forum for street art.

Filling our available blank public space with undeniably beautiful street art has the added effect of educating people about what graffiti can be. At its best it will inspire people as all good art does. It will encourage people to think more creatively and teach those rapscallion vandals about the wide horizons that of graffiti. It is in effect leading by example.

To conclude, I think we need to be bold and progressive with our vision for this city. There are elements of this to be seen around Auckland these days which is very positive. However, there seem to be some things that we have entirely wrong. The graffiti rules and regulations are one of them. What I propose is really a win-win situation. Through saving the council and taxpayer a lot of money, targeting the true culprits and embracing the progressive and unique art-form that is graffiti, Auckland can feasibly become a world leader in creativity. This is something that very few places around the world have had a great deal of success with, but I believe that with the right vision and support we can. This is also something that would add to the artistic credibility of Auckland and aid the growth of turning our city into a true artistic hub.

There is something wrong with defacing people’s personal property. There is nothing wrong with showcasing artistic flair in a suitable location that inspires and enriches a community. The rules need to be changed.

http://matadornetwork.com/trips/10-places-where-graffiti-is-legal/