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 />
Discussion <strong>and</strong> conclusion<br />
The results presented above have implications for policy makers <strong>and</strong> the wide range <strong>of</strong><br />
agencies involved in crime prevention initiatives. Four themes <strong>of</strong> general significance emerge<br />
from the data:<br />
• it is clear that graffiti writers do not form a group clearly or wholly distinct from nongraffiti<br />
writers;<br />
• graffiti is a meaningful cultural <strong>and</strong> social practice for writers <strong>and</strong> only indirectly<br />
appreciated for its illegality;<br />
• for some (but not all), graffiti writing is associated with a desire for local celebrity,<br />
<strong>and</strong>;<br />
• graffiti writers’ perspectives on desistance suggest highly bounded rationality about<br />
prevention strategies such that consequences <strong>and</strong> implications were <strong>of</strong>ten poorly<br />
understood <strong>and</strong> not considered. Each <strong>of</strong> these is discussed in turn, <strong>and</strong> policy<br />
implications <strong>of</strong> each are highlighted.<br />
The research findings provide little evidence to suggest that graffiti writers are a distinct subgroup<br />
among young people with identifiable perceptions <strong>of</strong> graffiti, <strong>and</strong> the most appropriate<br />
responses to it, that differ from the wider population. Although graffiti writers were less likely<br />
to report that graffiti was ‘always a bad thing’, the survey data show that participants <strong>and</strong><br />
non-participants tended to share a contextual view <strong>of</strong> graffiti that recognises it has negative<br />
consequences in some circumstances. Similarly, all respondents to the survey tend to ‘agree’<br />
or ‘strongly agree’ that graffiti is an art form, <strong>and</strong> a form <strong>of</strong> personal expression that required<br />
creativity. They also tended to agree that it had negative attributes in terms <strong>of</strong> property<br />
damage <strong>and</strong> affect on residents’ perceptions <strong>of</strong> their neighbourhood. Attitudes toward graffiti<br />
were shaped by fine judgements relating to the perceived legitimacy <strong>of</strong> the venue, the<br />
physical challenges overcome to write on that location, <strong>and</strong> the aesthetic value <strong>of</strong> the graffiti<br />
itself. Even those who engaged in graffiti writing <strong>and</strong> appreciated it as an artistically<br />
worthwhile activity tended to report that some venues, such as schools or marae, were not<br />
legitimate sites for graffiti. As cited earlier, one focus group participant summarised the<br />
informal criteria surrounding the location <strong>of</strong> graffiti thus: ‘there are rules, you know, even the<br />
graffiti guys have rules – so when someone breaks them it’s the pits. You know, the OG<br />
writers don’t tag churches or private property, schools. But people break those rules, most <strong>of</strong><br />
the time it’s just hooligans’. Responses to graffiti writing that cast participants as antisocial<br />
criminals are unlikely to coincide with young people’s perceptions <strong>and</strong> attitudes toward graffiti<br />
<strong>and</strong> tagging, which are bound up with conceptions <strong>of</strong> the value <strong>of</strong> private property <strong>and</strong> public<br />
venues that are not legitimate sites for writing.<br />
48