Tagging and Graffiti - Victoria University of Wellington

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Tagging and Graffiti: attitudes and experiences of New Zealanders and drugs in order to focus on graffiti, or even that writing is an alternative to these activities: Alcohol and drugs sort of put you in that…mood. (Focus group participant) No, I know heaps of people who do it just for fun. (Focus group participant) Instead of taking drugs or getting drunk they tag. (Focus group participant). Some survey respondents also highlighted that ‘to damage something’ or ‘to destroy something’ was an unpopular reason for doing graffiti and were highly critical of the researchers for including it as a category. More on the relation between illegality and graffiti follows further in the discussion section of this report. The commissioning of graffiti and tagging A slight majority (57.6 per cent) of respondents reported that they had not written graffiti. The survey asked respondents to state either simply ‘yes’ that they do write graffiti or that they ‘sometimes’ did: 33.8 per cent fell into the former category and 8.7 per cent the latter. In some of the discussion that follows distinction is drawn between ‘committed’, ‘occasional’ and ‘non’ graffiti writers, and this is based on this self-categorisation. Table 5 shows how responses to this question varied by age, gender and ethnicity. Table 5: Have you ever written graffiti (number and percentages) Yes Sometimes No % n % n % n All 33.8 232 8.7 52 57.6 407 Males 47.6 177 7.8 29 44.6 166 Females 17.2 55 7.2 23 75.5 241 Under 14 36.4 4 18.2 2 45.5 5 14-16 34.5 59 6.4 11 59.1 101 17-19 35.4 91 7.4 19 57.2 147 20-21 34.5 19 10.9 6 54.5 30 22-23 45.7 16 8.6 3 45.7 16 24-25 37.9 11 6.9 2 55.2 16 25+ 43.2 19 11.4 5 45.5 20 30+ 20.7 12 5.2 3 74.1 43 40+ 3.2 1 3.2 1 93.5 29 NZ European 22.0 59 4.5 12 73.5 197 Māori 50.9 59 11.2 13 37.9 44 Pacific peoples 41.0 16 12.8 5 46.2 18 Asian 8.3 3 5.6 2 86.1 31 European 56.1 32 12.3 7 31.6 18 Other ethnicity 32.7 36 9.1 10 58.2 64 Clearly the data indicates a substantial difference between male and female involvement in graffiti: with 55.4 per cent of male respondents agreeing that they had written graffiti, at 28
Tagging and Graffiti: attitudes and experiences of New Zealanders least occasionally. In contrast, 75.5 per cent of females reported that they had not written graffiti. Levels of self-reported involvement in writing graffiti also changed with the age of respondents; although there does not appear to be any clear pattern in the relationship between age and reported writing. More than half of those aged under-14 reported that they had, at least on occasion, written graffiti. The group with the highest participation was those aged 22-23 years (45.7 per cent reported that ‘yes’ they wrote graffiti and 8.6 per cent admitted that they ‘sometimes’ participated). The various age groups under 30 years all reported that they participated at a rate between 34.5 and 45.7 per cent. It was only in relation to the two oldest cohorts that reported participation became notably lower. It is important to note that the data does not relate to the age at which respondents first wrote graffiti: respondents were specifically asked whether they had ever participated so the lower participation rate among older respondents probably does not reflect that they have desisted from writing graffiti; nor does it necessarily reveal anything about the ‘peak age’ of offending. Those who reported that they had written graffiti were asked about the property that had been targeted. Table 6 shows that a broad range of properties were selected, and that ‘other’ was also chosen by many respondents (more than one category could be chosen). This suggests that the classification of property in terms of ownership status and so on does not exert a strong influence on ‘event decisions’: focus group discussion suggested that the preference for public space might be related to the desire that graffiti be seen as widely as possible. Table 6: Property selected for graffiti (number and percentages) % n Public space (e.g. alleyway, bus shelter, power box) 68.8 212 Other 57.1 176 Public building (e.g. school, hospital) 42.2 130 Private residence (e.g. wall, fence or garage) 40.6 125 Waste-ground 36.0 111 Private business (e.g. shop) 35.7 110 Focus group discussions reinforced these findings; a very wide range of locations were identified as likely venues for graffiti and tagging. Decisions about location were related to accessibility and visibility as well as the suitability of the surface offered. Typical comments included: You only do it where people can see it (Focus group participant) The best place is on the concrete ‘cos then they don’t remove it (Focus group participant) 29
Page 1 and 2: Tagging and Graffiti: attitudes and
Page 27: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?