Tagging and Graffiti - Victoria University of Wellington
Tagging and Graffiti - Victoria University of Wellington
Tagging and Graffiti - Victoria University of Wellington
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Tagging</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Graffiti</strong>: attitudes <strong>and</strong> experiences <strong>of</strong> New Zeal<strong>and</strong>ers<br />
Executive summary<br />
The central aim <strong>of</strong> the study was to:<br />
• develop underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fender motivation <strong>and</strong> attitudes <strong>of</strong> young people more<br />
generally to tagging <strong>and</strong> graffiti.<br />
More specific questions form the central objectives <strong>of</strong> the study:<br />
• to develop knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fenders’ attitudes toward graffiti <strong>and</strong> tagging;<br />
• to underst<strong>and</strong> the extent (if any) to which tagging <strong>and</strong> graffiti <strong>of</strong>fending is associated<br />
with other criminal activity;<br />
• to identify factors that shape ‘involvement decisions’, ‘event decisions’ <strong>and</strong><br />
‘desistance decisions’ (Cornish <strong>and</strong> Clarke, 2006);<br />
• to examine the extent to which the transgressive nature <strong>of</strong> tagging <strong>and</strong> graffiti are<br />
central to <strong>of</strong>fender motivation;<br />
• to establish the relationships between tagging, graffiti <strong>and</strong> other aspects <strong>of</strong> youth<br />
subculture.<br />
The research was conducted via an online survey <strong>and</strong> a series <strong>of</strong> focus groups. Findings from<br />
the survey <strong>and</strong> focus groups are presented in relation to three broad themes: general<br />
attitudes toward graffiti, the commissioning <strong>and</strong> writing <strong>of</strong> graffiti <strong>and</strong> tagging, <strong>and</strong><br />
desistance from graffiti <strong>and</strong> tagging.<br />
Four themes <strong>of</strong> general significance emerge from the data:<br />
• graffiti writers do not form a group clearly or wholly distinct from non-graffiti 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 />
• graffiti writing is associated with a desire for local celebrity;<br />
• graffiti writers’ perspectives on desistance suggest highly bounded rationality about<br />
prevention strategies.<br />
General attitudes toward graffiti<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the main themes was that there is a distinction between ‘tagging’ <strong>and</strong> graffiti. The<br />
former is acknowledged as a “simple, stylised self-elected name or signature written in<br />
public” while graffiti is referred to as “markings on a surface” (Tearaway, 2009). A majority <strong>of</strong><br />
respondents argued that the circumstances determined whether graffiti is a negative thing:<br />
• 81.9 per cent ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that graffiti should be tolerated in some<br />
circumstances;<br />
• those who reported that they had written graffiti were most likely to report that it is<br />
never a ‘bad thing’ (23.4 per cent);<br />
5