Tagging and Graffiti - Victoria University of Wellington
Tagging and Graffiti - Victoria University of Wellington
Tagging and Graffiti - Victoria University of Wellington
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Tagging</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Graffiti</strong>: attitudes <strong>and</strong> experiences <strong>of</strong> New Zeal<strong>and</strong>ers<br />
least occasionally. In contrast, 75.5 per cent <strong>of</strong> females reported that they had not written<br />
graffiti. Levels <strong>of</strong> self-reported involvement in writing graffiti also changed with the age <strong>of</strong><br />
respondents; although there does not appear to be any clear pattern in the relationship<br />
between age <strong>and</strong> reported writing. More than half <strong>of</strong> those aged under-14 reported that they<br />
had, at least on occasion, written graffiti. The group with the highest participation was those<br />
aged 22-23 years (45.7 per cent reported that ‘yes’ they wrote graffiti <strong>and</strong> 8.6 per cent<br />
admitted that they ‘sometimes’ participated). The various age groups under 30 years all<br />
reported that they participated at a rate between 34.5 <strong>and</strong> 45.7 per cent. It was only in<br />
relation to the two oldest cohorts that reported participation became notably lower. It is<br />
important to note that the data does not relate to the age at which respondents first wrote<br />
graffiti: respondents were specifically asked whether they had ever participated so the lower<br />
participation rate among older respondents probably does not reflect that they have desisted<br />
from writing graffiti; nor does it necessarily reveal anything about the ‘peak age’ <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fending.<br />
Those who reported that they had written graffiti were asked about the property that had<br />
been targeted. Table 6 shows that a broad range <strong>of</strong> properties were selected, <strong>and</strong> that ‘other’<br />
was also chosen by many respondents (more than one category could be chosen). This<br />
suggests that the classification <strong>of</strong> property in terms <strong>of</strong> ownership status <strong>and</strong> so on does not<br />
exert a strong influence on ‘event decisions’: focus group discussion suggested that the<br />
preference for public space might be related to the desire that graffiti be seen as widely as<br />
possible.<br />
Table 6: Property selected for graffiti (number <strong>and</strong> percentages)<br />
% n<br />
Public space (e.g. alleyway, bus shelter, power box) 68.8 212<br />
Other 57.1 176<br />
Public building (e.g. school, hospital) 42.2 130<br />
Private residence (e.g. wall, fence or garage) 40.6 125<br />
Waste-ground 36.0 111<br />
Private business (e.g. shop) 35.7 110<br />
Focus group discussions reinforced these findings; a very wide range <strong>of</strong> locations were<br />
identified as likely venues for graffiti <strong>and</strong> tagging. Decisions about location were related to<br />
accessibility <strong>and</strong> visibility as well as the suitability <strong>of</strong> the surface <strong>of</strong>fered. Typical comments<br />
included:<br />
You only do it where people can see it (Focus group participant)<br />
The best place is on the concrete ‘cos then they don’t remove it (Focus group<br />
participant)<br />
29