Tagging and Graffiti - Victoria University of Wellington

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Tagging and Graffiti: attitudes and experiences of New Zealanders government in New Zealand spends considerable sums on removing it: in 2006 Auckland, New Zealand, spent approximately $5 million on graffiti clean-up. In 2007 it is estimated that Manukau City Council spent $1 million on its Graffiti Management Strategies (Police News, 2008). Rapid removal of graffiti can lead to the illusion that the problem has abated, as the general public do not see evidence of offensive tags or graffiti (Craw, Leland et al., 2006). Despite these efforts, as targeted sites are cleaned up by councils, they are often quickly retargeted (Craw, Leland et al., 2006). Much of the general media, political and policy debate surrounding graffiti understand the phenomenon almost solely in terms of damaging vandalism that has a negative impact on crime and quality of life issues (Ministry of Justice and Local Government New Zealand, 2006; Ministry of Justice, 2008). On the other hand, many youth see it as creative expression, a way to show society how they feel (Ferrell, 1995; White, 2001). There is a tension between those organisations attempting to remove and prevent graffiti, and youth wanting to break free of social constraint (White, 2001). Graffiti writers and authorities are juxtaposed (Ferrell, 1995; White, 2001). Graffitists see a blank canvas to be brightened up with colour and design; the need to beautify a plain wall (Ferrell, 1995; White, 2001). In contrast, local government sees the damage caused by graffiti and the high cost of cleaning it up (Ferrell, 1995; Halsey and Young, 2002; Halsey and Young, 2006). Several authors see the need to examine the reasons why young people involve themselves in this illicit activity (White, 2001; Halsey and Young, 2002; Craw, Leland et al., 2006; Halsey and Young, 2006). Halsey and Young (2006) interviewed graffiti writers to ascertain their motivations for immersion in the culture. Key among those is that writers gain pleasure and enjoyment from writing. Other reasons for graffiti writing included a sense of belonging to the culture, fame and the affective response to the writing process; taking hold of the can, seeing their work finished (Halsey and Young 2006). These themes form an important part of this study and are reviewed in more detail below. Relevant to this discussion is graffiti’s centrality to cultural criminology through its association with the expression of youth culture (Goldson, 2007). Cultural criminology emerged in the 1990’s from sociological and critical criminological thinking emphasising youth identity, activity and location (Goldson, 2007). While not all graffiti writers are young, it is seen as a youth ‘problem’ as a number of teenagers engage in graffiti writing (Halsey and Young, 2002). Halsey and Young (2006) question the perception that graffiti writers are bored and cause damage to property due to a lack of respect for it. In contrast, graffiti writers feel a sense of belonging to a community, a comradeship with other young people immersed in graffiti culture. The feeling of belonging is supported by Ferrell’s (1995) work in Colorado in the US, which noted social cohesion between disaffected youth who connect with each other through the activity of writing. Seeing another youth’s tag and recognising it supports the 18
Tagging and Graffiti: attitudes and experiences of New Zealanders cohesion to the group (Ferrell, 1995; Halsey and Young, 2006). Halsey and Young (2006) criticise academics for presuming that graffiti writers are oppressed or disenfranchised, and for ignoring the familial support and recognition felt within their community. Furthermore, Halsey and Young (2006) argue against focusing on graffiti writing as meaningless and excessive behaviour, as this contradicts the reality of preparation and practice that goes into graffitists’ work. Cultural criminology is a theoretical perspective that focuses on the intense meanings invested in activities such as graffiti and the centrality of such activities to participants’ lifestyles. Crime and deviance are often analysed by cultural criminologists as offering thrills, pleasure and the ‘seductions of crime’ (Katz, 1988 cited in Carrabine, Iganski, Lee and Plummer, 2004; 84). Cultural criminology also sought to critique traditional motivational accounts of crime which often saw crime as being in some way pathological. Although cultural criminology is critical of rational choice theories of crime, arguing that some kinds of crime such as graffiti are motivated by excitement and thrill seeking, this does not mean that there are not important meanings or motivations behind activities such as graffiti. Another motivation for graffiti writers comes from their alternative view of the urban landscape (Halsey and Young, 2006). Graffitists see surfaces as marked by weather and rust, damaged by atmospheric conditions and so on. As such, no area is pristine and consequently can be altered by anyone. Likewise graffitists look at blank walls as an opportunity to liven up the environment. All structures and surfaces are a ready canvas to explore; to decorate a negative space and bring it to life (Halsey and Young, 2006). Ferrell (1993) describes the alternative way young writers communicate via their art form; for some it is the only way they have to express themselves publicly. Writing is also a way of connecting to the city, with pride taken in the recognition gained in their alternative community (Halsey and Young, 2006). Additionally, White (2001) explains that there are as many different types of graffiti writer as there are forms of graffiti; from political messages to art pieces. In order to address graffiti vandalism, policy makers must understand the graffiti writers’ perspective on their activities (Halsey and Young, 2006). It is also important to note that graffiti and tagging, although not exclusively carried out by young people (those aged between 14 and 25), are often linked to ‘youth’, and it is the case that many of those involved in graffiti and tagging can be classed as young people. Graffiti and tagging therefore need to be considered in the wider context of youth crime. There is often the perception that youth crime is out of control, although according to the Ministry of Youth Justice in 2000, young offenders cannot be seen as a category of ‘criminals’ that is homogeneous. For example, of all the young men who commit an offence, as a quarter of all young men in New Zealand do, the vast majority will settle down to become law abiding citizens in their twenties: only 15-20 per cent of the ‘ever offended’ category go on to commit more offences later in life. This follows international patterns with countries like Australia, UK and United States (USA) reporting similar patterns in youth offending. The vast majority (75 19
Page 1 and 2: Tagging and Graffiti: attitudes and
Page 17: Tagging and Graffiti: attitudes and
Page 33 and 34: culture’, and males more likely t
Page 55 and 56: Appendix one: on-line survey 55

Tagging and Graffiti - Victoria University of Wellington

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?