recommendations on culturally significant graffiti

7/30/2019 Recommendations on Culturally Significant Graffiti

1/46

Andrew Browne Recommendations on Culturally Significant Graffiti, November 2010

Page | 1


2/46


Page | 2

Recommendations on Culturally Significant Graffiti

Advice for the Department of Planning and Community Development

''Graffiti isn't meant to last forever. I'd prefer someone draw amoustache and glasses on one of my pieces than encase it in Perspex

... I've always been uncomfortable with the way galleries put things on

a pedestal. I think art should be a two-way conversation, not a lecture

from behind glass.''1

Banksy

By Andrew Browne,

City of Yarra,

November 2010

xerocorp[at]hotmail.com

1http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/banksys-first-australian-interview-

20100528-wlj8.html


3/46


Page | 3

Contents

Abstract

Introduction: The Cultural Significance of Graffiti and Street Art

Chapter 1: Definitions: Taxonomy of Melbourne Graffiti

1.1 Slogan and autograph graffiti

1.2 New York style graffiti

1.3 Street art

Chapter 2: Banksy in Melbourne

2.1 The Little Diver

2.2 Parachuting Rat

2.3 Extant Work

Chapter 3: Literature Review

3.1 Policy documents

3.2 Popular responses

3.3 Other publications

Chapter 4: Locations

4.1 Union Lane

4.2 Hosier and Routledge Lanes

4.3 Fitzroy / Yarra

Chapter 5: Management Models

5.1 City of Yarras Management Model

5.2 City of Melbournes Management Model

5.3 Analysis of Management Models

5.4 Documentation Methods

Conclusion: Opportunities, Risks, Recommendations

Notes and Bibliography


4/46


Page | 4

Abstract

Street Art is a global art movement of considerable popularity which poses unique

problems for Government. A negative public reaction to the recent erroneous

removal of one particular work of cultural significance suggests some measure of

legal protection should be afforded these sometimes illegal works.

This review finds that such legal protection in fact already exists under the City of

Melbournes management policy, and exists de facto (though not in published policy)

under the City of Yarras management program.

This report documents three attempts, since 1998, to apply traditional conservation

strategies to these ephemeral works. All three such attempts failed to protect the

works, and probably hastened their destruction.

An alternative response is the recommendation of this report; a photographic streetart archive web site, maintained by Government and contributed to by interested

members of the public.

This presents a legally unproblematic response that documents and preserves the

appearance of the work without requiring additional legal strategies, and can assist

graffiti management programs as well as offering to the public a valuable record of

culturally significant work.


5/46


Page | 5

Introduction: the cultural significance of graffiti and street art.

Graffiti in Melbourne has been a social issue worthy of public comment since at least

1859, when it was noticed obscenities had been added to the noticeboard in the

Carlton Gardens.2

Its form remained relatively constant until the culture of New York

style graffiti reached Melbourne in the early 1980s; its tags remain a ubiquitous

feature of modern urban life. A new genre of graffiti, street art, erupted in

Melbourne in the first few years of the new millennium, and some of its creators and

creations have since achieved considerable international popularity.

Street art is a popular international art movement. At the time of writing, the

National Gallery of Australia in Canberra is staging its first exhibition of Australian

street art, entitled Space Invaders.3

A poll conducted by Lonely Planet in 2008

declared the street art in Melbourne laneways the nations top cultural tourist

drawcard.

4

The artist largely responsible for the rise and spread of the street art movement

remains its most popular and successful. Banksy is the pseudonym of the worlds

most famous street artist. While the artist hails from Bristol, street art is an

international movement.

Melbourne has been recognised internationally as a centre of this global movement.

Recognising the citys prominence in this emerging movement, Banksy visited in

2003, and made his own contributions to the Melbourne streets without botheringto ask permission.

5Since one of his works sold in 2007 for 288,000, he has become

internationally famous.6

2The Encyclopedia of Melbourne, p315

3http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/SPACEINVADERS/

4http://www.theage.com.au/national/antigraffiti-lobby-sees-red-at-heritagelisting-proposal-

20080622-2uzy.html5

Stencil Graffiti Capital: Melbourne, p866http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL2531915420070425


6/46


Page | 6

Figure 1: The Banksy work whose removal prompted this report, December 2009i

In April 2010 a graffiti cleaning crew contracted by the City of Melbourne removed

some graffiti from the wall of the Forum Theatre facing Hosier Lane. To the

untrained eye the section was a mess of tags and old stencils, the kind of graffiti that

would usually be removed. The old stencil was by Banksy and was one of his last

remaining works in the CBD.

From this a clamour erupted in the popular press, and international news wires

buzzed with the story.7

Up until this point the only substantive response to graffiti by

State and Local Governments had been to remove it. The outcry in response to the

City of Melbourne removing this work by an internationally recognised artist marks a

clear turning point in the requirements of graffiti policy.

Previous to this incident, graffiti concerned Government in two ways. State

Government is responsible for enforcing the laws against it, and Local Government is

responsible for keeping their municipalities graffiti-free.

That many people have come to regard this illegal art as culturally valuable poses

two risks to Government. Firstly, the one described above, that Government is seen

to be responsible for the destruction of culturally valuable works. The other, that

Government is seen to be insufficiently determined to resist this social ill.

7http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1045722/melbournes-banksy-blunder-mocked-overseas

The Citylights Project blog also lists over 50 published responses to this incident;

http://www.citylightsprojects.com/press/great-hosier-lane-banksy-debacle-compendium-links-

articles-around-web


7/46


Page | 7

In order to satisfy competing stakeholder demands, the appropriate course to

pursue in this changing terrain is one that aggressively pursues and eliminates

unwanted graffiti, without aggressively stamping out this art movement that people

like so much. How might Government distinguish between good and bad graffiti?

The good news is, this is an issue of municipal policy, and the way has been expertly

navigated by the City of Melbourne. In 2007, the City of Melbourne introduced a

graffiti management program that effectively offered legal protection to these illegal

artworks. This was not seen as encouraging criminal activity because of the design of

the policy. The Street Art Permit system offers protection for street art works from

being removed by Council cleaning crews. It offers this protection to two kinds of

work; works which already exist, or a work that is proposed for a specific location.

The process is such that a building owner may apply to Council for a Street Art

Permit for a work that is proposed or already exists on the wall of their building. This

application is assessed by a panel within Council, and if approved, the work ispermitted. This program applies over and above current State policy which prevents

Council removing graffiti from private property without written permission from the

owner or tenant.

By protecting existing works, the City of Melbourne was extending legal protection

to illegal artworks. This was done without significant public reaction by conflating

this illegal category of artwork with legal ones, that is, those yet to exist and done

with permission.

Other municipalities offer de facto protection for significant works by decidinginformally not to remove them. Melbourne is the first municipality in Australia, if not

the world, to enshrine this de facto arrangement as published policy. Its current

policy8

stands as an outstanding example of balancing the need to remove unwanted

graffiti with sensitivity to the cultural value of this emergent art form.

8http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/PlansandPublications/strategies/Documents/graffit

i_management_plan_2009_2013.pdf


8/46


Page | 8

Chapter 1: Definitions: Taxonomy of Melbourne Graffiti.

There are three main genres of graffiti in Melbourne. Each of these genres

represents a separate cultural tradition, with different practitioners, aims,

conventions, techniques, aesthetics, terminologies and histories. These three genres

are; slogan and autograph graffiti, New York style graffiti, and street art.

1.1 Slogan and Autograph Graffiti

Slogan and autograph graffiti9

dates at least as far back as Ancient Greece. Some

examples of this kind of graffiti are extremely culturally valuable, such as the

Alexamenos graffito, which is the first known depiction of Jesus10

, or the graffiti of

Pompeii.

This kind of graffiti is a visual background noise to urban life the world over, and is

recorded in Melbourne as early as 1859.11 A couple of examples further illustrate theintersection of this type of graffiti with Australian cultural history.

BUGA UP

BUGA UP12

was a collective of public health activists who altered billboards

advertising tobacco and other unhealthy products from 1978 until 1994, when the

billboard advertising of tobacco was banned.13

This group constitutes the first

recorded example of organised graffiti culture in Australia. In bringing political

attention to the issue of tobacco control, and surely contributing to the current legal

restrictions on tobacco advertising, the effect of this campaign was indeed pivotal outstanding [and] profound.

14

While this is an example of slogan graffiti having a decided cultural impact and

significance, there are no recorded attempts to conserve the products of the BUGA

UP campaign. Not so some slogan graffiti in Richmond from the 1950s.

9As discussed below, the best published photographic sources for this type of graffiti within Australia

are three books by Rennie Ellis.10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito11

The Encyclopedia of Melbourne, p31512

An acronym standing for Billboard Utilising Graffitists Against Unhealthy Promotions.13

Chapman, Simon Civil disobedience and tobacco control: the case of BUGA UP Tobbaco Control,

1996, 5, p179-185, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1759523/pdf/v005p00179.pdf14 ibid


9/46


Page | 9

The Keon Graffito

Figure 2: The Keon Graffitoii

In 1998, the National Trust Australia (Victoria) considered for classification a politicalslogan on the wall of a Richmond factory. Its draft report recognised the graffitis

cultural significance;

The Keon traitor to the ALP graffiti, painted between 1955 and 1961, is

historically and socially significant at the local level. The graffiti is the only

tangible reminder in the Richmond area of the great split of the Democratic

Labor Party from the Australian Labor Party which occurred in 1955. This split

turned the suburb of Richmond, a heartland of Labor politics, into one of the

bitterest and most damaged battlegrounds. The graffiti demonstrates the

depth of emotion in the streets during this period.15

As Avery notes, this NTAV consideration signifies both graffitis potential cultural

value and the contested status of that value. In an irony that typifies the problems

surrounding the conservation of such ephemera, the process of this heritage

consideration was effectively short-circuited by its subsequent destruction, as

follows.

15NTAV Draft Classification Report, cited in Avery, Values not Shared: the Street Art of Melbournes

City Laneways, in Gibson and Pendlebury (eds) Valuing Historic Environments, Ashgate, 2009, p145


10/46


Page | 10

The NTAV considered the piece for classification. That consideration generated

media attention. This media attention is believed to have resulted in the graffitos

vandalism. That vandalism necessarily put a stop to the heritage consideration

process.16

This, and the example of Banksys Little Diver (discussed below), should

both serve as cautionary tales against approaching graffiti with traditional heritage

conservation strategies.

1.2 New York Style Graffiti

Hip hop style graffiti17

is a global cultural movement based on a style of illegal mark-

making first seen in New York in the late 1960s. By 1979, work of this genre was

being exhibited in an art gallery in Rome18

, and by the early 1980s it had found its

way onto the public infrastructure of Melbourne.19

This genre is the most prolific and

visible genre of graffiti in Melbourne. Indeed, tagging is ubiquitous throughout the

cities of the developed world.

While the distinctive visual signature of this activity immediately made its presence

felt, this culture brought with it not just specific aesthetic forms, but also shared

cultural understandings, traditions and terminology.

Figure 3: Tags in Melbourneiii

Locally, this tradition is referred to as graf, its practitioners usually describe

themselves as writers. The three main aesthetic forms of this genre are the tag,

16Private correspondence with NTAV.

17Often described by its adherents as simply graffiti, this style of graffiti is herein described as New

York style graffiti. The more general term is here usually used to describe more generally all three

genres of illegal mark-making.18

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti19

As discussed below, the definitive history of New York style graffiti in Melbourne is Cubrilo, Harvey

and Stamer, King's Way: The Beginnings of Australian Graffiti: Melbourne 1983-93, Miegunyah, 2009


11/46


Page | 11

the throwie and the piece. Like slogan writing but unlike street art, these forms all

derive from the written word. New York style graffiti is surely the most graphically

adventurous western tradition of writing to emerge since the advent of the printing

press.

The word tag refers primarily to the written physical artefact, the marked surface,

but also to the pseudonym of the writer. A written tag usually takes the form of an

illegible signature written with large marker or spray paint, often featuring

decorative motifs such as quotation marks, stars, underlinings or arrows. It is usually

less than 1m by 1m, and is surely the form of graffiti least liked by the wider

community.

The illegibility of tags is most often due to a wildly scrawling stylized abstraction, and

sometimes dripping or running paint or ink. While this illegibility seems a source of

offence to the wider community, to practitioners it characterises the genres

decorative style. That these marks are offensive and even more illegible to non-practitioners is a source of some pride; it signifies the difference between writers

and the rest of the community.

Common variations include tags sprayed on a larger scale with a hand-pumped spray

bottle or repurposed fire extinguisher, the rollie, where the tag is painted in large

letters with a long-handled roller, and the scratchy, in which the word is scratched

into a surface such as glass with an abrasive implement, commonly sandpaper or an

abrasive drill bit. These techniques allow less aesthetic refinement than tagging with

a spray can or marker.

Slightly more complicated than the tag is the throwie or throw-up. It usually

consists of the writers pseudonym (or an abbreviation of it) spraypainted in two

colours, a darker colour for outline and a lighter colour for filling in the outline.

Figure 4: Throw-ups or throwies (and tags), November 2010

iv


12/46


Page | 12

The piece is the prime exemplar of the New York derived graffiti genre. It is usually

a writers pseudonym, though, like tags, often so stylized as to not be readable. A

piece is always spraypainted and generally features at least three colours (usually an

outline, a fill and a background), and must also be of a certain size. The basis for this

size is derived from the size of a panel (the side of a train carriage). It usually

extends from the ground to as high as a writers reach (around 2m), and long enough

to spell out a word at that height. So an average size for a significant piece would be

about 2m by 3m.

Figures 5 & 6: Pieces, November 2010v

Sometimes a piece is accompanied by depiction of characters, a spraypainted

cartoon-style depiction of a person or creature. A wall featuring more than one piece

executed simultaneously is referred to as a production.

While slogans and street art both have the public as their intended audience, this is

not the case with New York style graffiti. Practitioners of this form of graffiti see their


13/46


Page | 13

audience as other practitioners. Their main concern in this pursuit is the attainment

of prestige (or fame) among their peers.

The main mechanisms for attaining this fame are placement, geographic coverage

and aesthetic finesse. The tag is main tool for achieving geographic coverage, while

the piece is the main genre for demonstrating aesthetic sophistication.

Greatest prestige is attached to work whose placement was highly risky, either

physically or legally, or whose execution was complex. A piece high on the outside of

a building or on the side of a train is much more highly valued by practitioners than a

tag in a public toilet. A single tag in itself is not greatly valued, what attracts prestige

most is an overall geographic pattern of coverage and placement, followed by

aesthetic finesse. The ideal then, for these practitioners, is to be the author of a

large number of highly aesthetic works in risky places over a wide geographic range.

These practitioners see themselves as part of an extensive hierarchical system,dominated by those with the greatest record of achievement (referred to as kings).

At the other end of the spectrum are inexperienced newcomers (toys). Toy also

remains a term of derision among experienced writers.

The practice of this genre of graffiti in the New York context is associated with

criminal street gangs, and this translates to the local context as crews. A crew is a

group of young people (almost always male) who practice graffiti and recognise

some common allegiance. While some crews are concerned only with graffiti, others

also engage in other petty crimes, such as shoplifting and mugging. Its a common

belief of writers the world over that stealing is the only properly legitimate way ofobtaining the spray paint used for this graffiti.

20

Another preoccupation of this culture is trains. Presumably influenced by the New

York origins of the genre, Melbourne writers prize most highly the territory

coinciding with the railway network. It was here that the presence of this genre was

first felt, and, despite massive efforts to contrary, here that the focus of the

practitioners remains. While fierce cleaning and security regimes have made the

rolling stock of the Melbourne railway network virtually unusable as a canvas, the

outside of train carriages remain the holy grail of New York style graffiti targets.21

In the New York context of the 70s and 80s, writers painted trains and watched

exultantly as the carriages carried their work through the city. In Melbourne of the

21st

century, the bravest writers paint on trains and content themselves with only a

photograph, in the almost certain knowledge that their handiwork will be removed

before the train is returned to circulation.

20Jisoe, the 2006 documentary film about a Melbourne graffitist, not only documents this belief, but

also documents its practice.21 The same film also documents writers breaking into a rail yard and painting on trains.


14/46


Page | 14

Rivalry is a prominent feature of the relations among this community. Prominent

wall space is subject to fierce competition between writers and crews, and hostility,

threats and violence are common. Anecdotal evidence suggests this has even

extended to the brandishing of guns and the burglarising of the houses of rivals to

deprive them of even the photographic record of their work.22

Melbourne graffiti writers are quite conscious that their practice, especially tagging,

is both illegal and disliked by the wider community, but, if anything, seem

emboldened by this reaction. Its illegality and countercultural status are no doubt

attractions to many of its practitioners.

It is clearly graffiti of this genre and tradition that causes the biggest problems for

Government, owing largely to its extent, its illegibility and apparently indiscriminate

placement. The non-graffiti criminality associated with this genre and its

practitioners should also be of concern, as it constitutes low level organised crime.

While graffiti of this genre does enjoy some popular following among non-

practitioners, its cultural significance is not great for the general populace. Although

it may change in future, there seem to be no recorded occasions of New York style

graffiti requiring a heritage response from Victorian State or local Government.

1.3 Street Art

Like New York style graffiti, Street Art is a global cultural movement.23

Street art

combines the political consciousness of slogan writing with the aesthetic

inventiveness of New York style graffiti, to create a genre of public mark-making withsomething of a fine art sensibility. It is distinct from public art in that its primary

aesthetic forms derive from illegal practice.

Like slogan writing, but unlike New York style graffiti, street art regards its audience

as including the general public. In line with this, it also commonly expresses a

political consciousness; anti-war, anti-corporate and anti-capitalist statements are

not uncommon. This is not to say that political or intellectual content is the main

thrust of street art. It is, as the name suggests, primarily an aesthetic movement.

It is arguably the emergence of this genre of graffiti, more culturally accessible andvaluable to a mainstream audience than that of the New York style, which has

necessitated the current heritage reconsideration of graffiti in general.

Street art differs from New York style graffiti in a number of ways. While the latter

style regards the most desirable target real estate as that surrounding the railway

22Private correspondence with anonymous graffiti writers

23The definitive distinction, found in both Avery, op cit, and on the current City of Melbourne

website, between graffiti as illegal public mark-making, and street art as its legal counterpart is at

odds with the history of both of these traditions. There are certainly examples of legal graffiti and

illegal street art.


15/46


Page | 15

network, street art thrives in pedestrian precincts. Because of this, the scale also

differs. While New York style graffiti is designed to be viewed on or from a moving

train, its primary form, pieces, are large scale and colourful. While comparable scale

and colour can be found in some street art, street arts primary form, the stencil, is

usually smaller and less colourful, relying instead on smaller-scale graphic detail.

Street art in Melbourne is a relatively recent phenomenon. The movement started

making its presence felt early in the millennium, and the first wave of Melbourne

street art peaked around 2003-4.

Figures 7 & 8: Stencilsvi

What the piece is to New York style graffiti, the stencil is to street art; its best

known and most recognisable manifestation. In regular English use, a stencil is asheet of material perforated in a pattern. When paint or ink is passed through those

perforations, it produces a decorative pictorial or textual pattern. These have

traditionally been used for decorative and industrial purposes. Their first use for

decorative graffiti is traced to France in the early 1980s.24

In street art vernacular, the term stencil refers both to the implement of mark-

making, and to the mark itself. They are almost always spray painted. The

implements and their images range from the size of a playing card to several storeys

high. When placed illegally in public, they tend towards practical and portable size,

and so are usually less than 1m by 1m.

While the most common form is a single (usually dark) colour sprayed once through

a single stencil, by combining different colours and layers of different stencils, the

medium is turned into a sophisticated printing process.

Other media common within the street art genre are paste-ups, which are printed

or hand-made posters stuck on to walls, stickers, freehand painting and installation.

24http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stencil_graffiti


16/46


Page | 16

Figure 9: A street art stickervii

Figure 10: A freehand street art characterviii


17/46


Page | 17

Chapter 2: Banksy in Melbourne.

There is an annual design conference called Semi Permanent based in Sydney. In

2003 they invited Banksy to contribute to a street art exhibition they were staging.

He accepted and, presumably having heard of its thriving street art scene, also

visited Melbourne while he was in the country. In the few days he was in town, he

put up 2 or 3 dozen stencilled artworks in the CBD and inner suburbs.

In 2007 his work sold at auction for record prices and his fame spread

internationally, amounting to a significant increase in the cultural value of his work.

Because of that increase in value, Banksys Melbourne work has been subject to two

conservation controversies.

2.1 The Little Diver

The stencilled artwork which came to be known as the Little Diver was perhaps themost obvious trace left of the artists 2003 visit. The image was painted in Cocker

Alley, just back from Melbournes main pedestrian thoroughfare, Swanston St, and

opposite a police station.

In 2007, the artists work sold at auction for 288,000.25

In 2008, the residents of the

Nicholas Building, whose wall hosted the image, applied for a City of Melbourne

street art permit and permission to install a Perspex shield, to conserve the work.

Both were granted and the shield was installed.

Figure 11: Banksys Little Diver, Cocker Alley, behind the Perspex shield, September 2008ix

25http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL2531915420070425


18/46


Page | 18

The shield was a sheet of Perspex attached to the wall by six bolts, fixed about 5cm

from the surface of the wall. While it was well designed to prevent vandalism by

marker, it was not well designed to protect against someone pouring silver paint into

the 5cm gap between the shield and the wall. This vandalism was a predictable

response to both the artists increased fame and this attempt to conserve his work.

Figure 12: Vandalism of the piece, December 2008x

Typical of the creative dialogue that characterises street art, another street artist

subsequently reworked both the original artwork and its vandalism, in the place

where they had once been. Silver paper cut into the shape of a torrent of paint was

pasted on the wall. Over the top, a single layer version of the original image,

reconstituting both the original work and its vandalism.


19/46


Page | 19

Figure 13: The works reincarnation, April 2010xi

2.2 Parachuting Rat

The second of the two conservation controversies centred on an incident in April

2010. A cleaning crew contracted by the City of Melbourne removed graffiti from the

side of the Forum theatre in Hosier Lane. According to one source within the City of

Melbourne, this was in response to a request from the building owner. According to

another, it was a human error made despite the fact that the area was protected

under the Street Art Permit system.

Either way, one of Banksys few remaining Melbourne works was removed. The

parachuting rat of around A3 size had been subject to further vandalism and was not

in good condition. The cleaners can be forgiven for not recognising its cultural

significance.


20/46


Page | 20

Figure 14: the contested Banksy stencil from Hosier Lane, December 2009xii

Because this removal was on Councils instructions, the incident attracted significant

media coverage both nationally and internationally. The prevailing opinion seemed

to be that Council had failed to protect a culturally valuable artefact.26

Shortly thereafter the artist conducted an interview with the Age newspaper. In it he

touched on these controversies and his response to heritage considerations of hiswork.

''Graffiti isn't meant to last forever. I'd prefer someone draw a moustache

and glasses on one of my pieces than encase it in Perspex ... I've always been

uncomfortable with the way galleries put things on a pedestal. I think art

should be a two-way conversation, not a lecture from behind glass.''27

2.3 Extant Work

Seven years is a long time in street art. While the artist initially put up at least 20 or

30 stencils in Melbourne in 2003, few have survived the intervening years. It seemslikely that, as of November 2010, there are eight or so extant Banksy works visible on

public walls in greater Melbourne in three locations; Duckboard Place in the CBD, on

and around Brunswick Street in Fitzroy, and on and around Greville Street in

26http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1045722/melbournes-banksy-blunder-mocked-overseas

The Citylights Project blog also lists over 50 published responses to this incident;

http://www.citylightsprojects.com/press/great-hosier-lane-banksy-debacle-compendium-links-

articles-around-web27

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/banksys-first-australian-interview-

20100528-wlj8.html


21/46


Page | 21

Prahran. Most of these have deteriorated significantly and are not in pristine

condition.

The only remaining works by Banksy in the Melbourne CBD are in Duckboard Place.

This area is heavily graffitied, and the long term survival of the remaining works

seems doubtful.

Figures 15 & 16: Banksy works in Duckboard Place, Melbourne, November 2010xiii

Three of the remaining works are in Fitzroy. A rat with a ghetto blaster on Brunswick

St, and a rat with a saw and a girl with a bomb on Gore St. The latter two especially

are at high risk of removal, because the building to which they are applied is

currently for sale.

Figure 17: Banksy work rat with ghetto blaster, Brunswick St Fitzroy, November 2010

(the eagle is a later addition by another artist)xiv


22/46


Page | 22

Figures 13& 14: Banksy works, Gore St. Fitzroy, November 2010xv

The remaining two pieces are in Prahran. The City of Stonnington, in which Prahran

is situated, espouses a zero tolerance policy, so their survival is not due to any

municipal conservation attempts.

Figure 15: Banksy work, parachuting rat with briefcase, facing Izzet St Prahran, November 2010xvi


23/46


Page | 23

Figure 16: Banksy work, smiley reaper, Greville St Prahran, November 2010xvii

A significant work in this area was destroyed in recent weeks, but this was not at the

behest of Council, and did not attract the attention of mainstream media outlets.

Figures 17 & 18: Banksy work, Greville St Prahranxviii

, & the site after repainting, October 2010xix

While these remaining works are his only artworks on public walls in Australia, many

cities internationally play host to his work. None of those have attracted the

conservation controversies that these Melbourne works have, however.

The best preserved examples of Banksys work to be found in Melbourne are painted

on the inside of the Revolver nightclub in Chapel Street Prahran.


24/46


Page | 24

Figure 19: Banksy work, inside Revolver Nightclub, Prahranxx

Figure 20: Banksy work, inside Revolver nightclub, Prahranxxi


25/46


Page | 25

Chapter 3: Literature Review

This section reviews State and Local Government policy documents, popular

responses and other publications regarding the cultural value of graffiti and street

art.

Graffiti and street art have undeniable cultural value. Yet this value is contested. The

vast majority of attention paid to graffiti by State and Local Government policy is as a

crime or an infrastructure problem.

In contrast to these policy documents, popular media and other publications detail

and exemplify both this value and its contested status. Recent popular books, films

and websites further prove the cultural value of graffiti and street art.

3.1 Policy Documents

The problem for Government is that policy acknowledgement amounts to legal

approval, and legally approving the product of illegal acts opens the door to

accusations of contradiction or hypocrisy. The most elegant policy response is

contained in the current City of Melbourne policy document.

State Legislation

Enacted legislation and published State Government policy considers graffiti to be a

crime and an infrastructure problem.

Prior to 2007, graffiti was defined as a crime under Victorian law by Section 197 of

the Crimes Act1958 and Section 9 of the Summary Offences Act1966. In 2007 the

State Parliament further defined graffiti as a crime by enacting the Graffiti

Prevention Act2007.

The act was and remains controversial. It introduced more severe penalties,

extended police powers and, some felt, reversed the common law presumption of

innocence. The Law Institute of Victoria wrote letters to two newspapers

condemning the Acts provisions as disproportionately punitive.

The Law Institute Victoria believes that a maximum punishment of two years

imprisonment for actually marking graffiti is disproportionate to the harm

caused by the practice, and makes no distinction between types of graffiti.

While tagging is simply dumb, some graffiti is considered an art form and

neither are violent acts that require increased police powers.28

Victorian State law does not specifically address graffiti as an object of cultural value.

28http://www.liv.asn.au/about-liv/media-centre/Media-Releases/Letter-to-the-Editor--Portland-

Observer-Graffiti-L.aspx?rep=1&glist=0&sdiag=0


26/46


Page | 26

Municipal Policy

The vast majority of published Victorian Municipal policy shares with its State

counterpart an understanding of graffiti as property crime. Few municipal policy

documents, whether nationally or internationally, acknowledge the potential for

cultural value of street art or graffiti.

The standard form of municipal policy, as it applies to municipalities of the

industrialised world, is to pledge rapid removal of unsightly graffiti. A common

practice which softens this zero tolerance approach is that Councils often decide

not to remove attractive or potentially significant work at their discretion. In the

cases of the Cities of Stonnington and Yarra, this discretionary non-removal is

standard practice but is not represented in published policy. In the case of the City of

Bristol in the UK, this discretionary power is outlined in their published policy.29

Considered below are examples of policy that are noteworthy in going beyond this

discretionary standard practice, by acknowledging factors that mitigate against a

zero tolerance approach.

The City of Yarras Whole of Community Graffiti Management Policy 2004

acknowledged that street art constitutes political and artistic expression;

Council supports the right to and importance of freedom of political and

artistic expression, including the rights of street artists.30

While these rights received minimal expression in actual policy terms, this rhetorical

shift opened a space in which graffitis cultural value could be discussed in a policy

context in Victoria. See Chapter 5 below for a more detailed account of the City of

Yarra's current practices.

Though it was not initially adopted as official policy, the City of Melbournes Draft

Graffiti Policy 2005 remains the most enlightened acknowledgement of graffitis

cultural value in a Local policy context.

The report begins by outlining graffitis contested cultural status;

While some see it as an index of social decline and youth criminality others

find pleasure in the expression and find its results attractive.31

29http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=34126132

30City of Yarras Whole of Community Graffiti Management Policy 2004

31GRAFFITI STRATEGY, THE CITY OF MELBOURNE, August 2005 DRAFT, obtained on request from the City of

Melbourne


27/46


Page | 27

Perhaps the reports most controversial recommendation was for areas of the City of

Melbourne to be designated spaces in which graffiti could thrive.

Council will designate certain laneways and other sites as areas of higher

tolerance for graffiti. Creating and supporting areas of higher tolerance in

which high quality street art can exist, is recognition of the cultural

significance that street art has for todays young people.32

By 2005 it was becoming obvious that street arts cultural value was unavoidable.

This recommendation was controversial in its heritage connotations; by endorsing a

policy that grants street art a right to exist, Council is providing tacit legal approval

for an illegal act.

Of all Victorian municipalities, the City of Melbourne is the one for whom the

problems of graffiti are the most pressing. The City of Melbourne Graffiti

Management Policy 2009-2013, and the associated Council web pages, represent asophisticated and decisive policy response to this complex issue. Of all current

Australian municipal policy, the City of Melbournes is (perhaps necessarily) the one

which most generously recognises graffitis cultural potential. This recognition is not

merely rhetorical, but is substantively embodied by a number of operational

management strategies.

Most significant is the Citys Street Art Program. Starting in 2007, the City of

Melbourne introduced a system of permits whereby existing or planned works could

be protected from Council removal. This management strategy was the first occasion

on which any level of Australian Government extended legal protection to illegalgraffiti. That the City of Melbourne was able to introduce this system without

significant public backlash33

must be regarded as quite an accomplishment, and a

standard by which subsequent graffiti policy implementation should be judged.

The current policy also acknowledges the cultural potential of graffiti with a number

of other strategies; namely, the graffiti mentoring program, the Union Lane street

art project, and the Adopt-a-Wall program. Also significant is the retention from the

2005 document of the recommendation of Council facilitating relationships between

street artists and art galleries. Each of these strategies constitutes significant policy

recognition of the potential cultural significance of graffiti and street art.

While these policy directions by the City of Melbourne are comparatively fearless,

the rhetoric with which they are presented is at pains to be safe and uncontroversial.

Like most municipal graffiti policy documents, the City of Melbournes current policy

restates the State Governments contention that graffiti adds to a community

32ibid

33The Herald-Sun, which can otherwise be relied upon to provide graffiti with negative attention,

found in the story only good news. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/street-art-gets-

nod/story-e6frf7kx-1111114739026


28/46


Page | 28

perception of disorder.34

Notably lacking from these policy documents is the

equally valid claim that the community also derives great pleasure from street art

and graffiti.

Internationally, there are similarly few policy documents that take into account

graffiti and street arts potential cultural value. Even Bristol, the municipality from

which Banksy hails and perhaps that containing most of his work, makes no

substantive policy allowance for this value, leaving its preservation to the discretion

of the Council.35

3.2 Popular responses

A large and increasing number of books and other media attest to the considerable

popularity of Melbourne street art and graffiti.

The first published photographic documentation of Australian slogan and autographgraffiti was a book by Rennie Ellis, Australian Graffiti (1975).

36This was followed by

Australian Graffiti Revisited(1979)37

and The All New Australian Graffiti(1985).38

It is

interesting to note that the use of stencils for political sloganeering is documented in

the first of these.

A useful and comprehensive book about Melbourne street art is Uncommissioned

Art by Christine Dew.39

Dew, a LaTrobe University academic, delivers a considered

and reflective response which delves deeply into attendant issues and whose

photographic coverage is encyclopedic.

Smallman and Nymans Stencil Graffiti Capital: Melbourne, documents the first wave

of Melbourne street art from the years 2002-2005.40

The recently published Kings

Wayis the definitive published record of the early history of Melbournes New York

style graffiti.41

More recent publications have focused more specifically on individual artists.

Street/Studio profiles 10 artists who work both on the street and in studios,42

and

the Everfresh: Black Bookdocuments the work of the Everfresh Melbourne street art

crew.43

34http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/PlansandPublications/strategies/Documents/graffi

ti_management_plan_2009_2013.pdf35

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=34126132 36

Ellis, RennieAustralian Graffiti, Sun Books, 197537

Ellis, RennieAustralian Graffiti Revisited, Sun Books, 197938

Ellis, Rennie The All New Australian Graffiti, Sun Books, 198539

Dew, Christine, Uncommissioned Art: The A-Z Of Australian Graffiti, Miegunyah, 200740

Smallman & Nyman Stencil Graffiti Capital: Melbourne, Mark Batty, 200641

Cubrilo, Harvey and Stamer, King's Way: The Beginnings of Australian Graffiti: Melbourne 1983-93,

Miegunyah, 200942

Young et al Street/Studio Thames & Hudson, 201043Everfresh: Black Book The Studio and Streets 2004-2010 Miegunyah, 2010


29/46


Page | 29

A number of other media have documented Melbourne graffiti and street art as well.

The definitive video documentary of the Melbourne street art movement is Rash,

from 2005.44

Jisoe is a touching film documenting the life of one Melbourne graffiti

writer, and provides significant sociological background to the culture of New York

style graffiti.4570K, a film which has been refused classification, provides harrowing

documentation of the vandalism of trains and other public infrastructure by the

notorious graffiti crew of the same name.46

A good website for the documentation of Melbournes New York style graffiti is

Melbourne Graffiti.47

While it has since acquired a more international outlook, the

Stencil Revolution website is remarkable for having been an early organizational hub

for the Melbourne street art movement.48

It remains a valuable archive of

Melbourne street art, specifically stencils, from 2003 onwards.

Innumerable publications cover the movement elsewhere or as a more internationalphenomenon. A good starting place for broader study is the Wooster Collective

website.49

3.3 Other publications

A number of local academics continue to study street art as a local and global

phenomenon from a number of angles. Noteworthy contributions come from Alison

Young of the University of Melbourne50

(whose 2005 draft policy for the City of

Melbourne is mentioned above) and Lachlan MacDowall from VCA51

.

An article in Art Monthly Australia in 2000 was unusual in subjecting Melbournes

New York style graffiti to an artistic appraisal. While the movement is seen as

culturally interesting, the article ultimately finds this graffiti to be artistically lacking.

The uncomfortable truth is that much graffiti is a drab, ugly mess. Little of it

jumps above the level of wannabe Science Fiction illustration or Schoolboy

Surrealism which has been jazzed up with shiners, drop shadows, 3D effects,

scrolls and other rudimentary signwriting tricks.52

Of course for the most part the practitioners dont regard what they do as fine artand would have little interest in such an analysis.

44Rash, directed by Nicholas Hansen, Mutiny Media, 2005

45Jisoe, directed by Eddie Martin, Siren, 2005

4670k, directed by Jamie Howarth, 2006

47http://www.melbournegraffiti.com/

48http://www.stencilrevolution.com/

49http://www.woostercollective.com/

50http://imagestoliveby.wordpress.com/

51http://www.graffitistudies.info/

52Heathcote, Christopher Discovering Graffiti, inArt Monthly Australia, September 2000


30/46


Page | 30

Most relevant to the current study is the article by Tracey Avery, Values Not

Shared.53

It is the most valuable and lucid examination of the topic in the local

context. In it, Avery notes the tension between heritage considerations of graffiti

and the danger that Government is seen to be condoning vandalism.54

She

documents the fraught history of local attempts at conservation, and the difficulty

such attempts face.

53Avery, Tracey Values not Shared: the Street Art of Melbournes City Laneways, in Gibson and

Pendlebury (eds) Valuing Historic Environments, Ashgate, 200954 Ibid.


31/46


Page | 31

Chapter 4: Locations

Street art in Melbourne is most concentrated in the CBD, and commonly found in

inner northern and eastern suburbs. As contested ephemeral phenomena, its

specific distribution varies over days, weeks, months and years. Historically (over the

last ten years), certain sites have become more or less popular for artists and have at

times presented striking open air galleries to passersby.

One example of this was a wall facing Canada Lane in Carlton, which was frequented

by Melbourne stencil artists, especially in 2003 to 2004. The site, once a valuable

historical document, has since been painted over.

Figure 21: Canada Lane, Carlton, 2007xxii

While there is still interesting street art spontaneously (and illegally) contributed the

walls of the City and its inner suburbs, it is not really organised geographically,

except in the sanctioned locations outlined below. The above example

notwithstanding, there do not seem to be spontaneous illegal open-air galleries of

significant cultural value that require consideration and protection by Government.

For two main reasons, the production and reception of street art, unlike New York

style graffiti, has followed a specific trajectory from being an almost invisible

conversation between disparate individual artists, to being an organised and

managed popular cultural movement.

The first of these reasons has been the increasing broad public acceptance and

commercial value of street art. These have led street artists from clandestine and


32/46


Page | 32

illegal forms of self-expression to legal and legitimate ones; be that commissions,

commercial gallery opportunities or local government-regulated legal street art

programs. The second of these reasons was the introduction of the 2007 Graffiti

Prevention Act, which introduced more severe legal penalties for illegal graffiti.

These mechanisms guided Melbourne street art from an ongoing and seemingly

endless conversation (as it seems to be in the years 2002-2005), to its current state,

more like an open-air museum, with professional curators showcasing the work of its

professional practitioners. This change has seen the movements democratic and

spontaneous creativity replaced with a more contrived aesthetic polish.

Due to the programs and policies put in place by the Cities of Melbourne and Yarra,

there are three main locations within Victoria where high quality street art is

thriving. All are currently protected by Municipal management, (that is, Councils

cleaners know not to remove the works) and all three locations are curated by

individuals with extensive prior street art experience. It is apparent that thiscuratorial expertise is instrumental to the high standard of output at these sites.

4.1 Union Lane

The Union Lane Street Art Project was identified in an audit by the City of Melbourne

as a problem area for graffiti. Cleaning the lane was proving costly and ineffective,

and so since 2007 the site has been managed as a sanctioned street art gallery by the

Citys Arts and Participation Program.55

The site is designated a permissible street art

site by the Citys Street Art Permit system and is also covered by relevant planning

permission.

The co-operation of the Arts and Participation Program with the sites curator, JD

Mittman, ensures that the project features street art that is of high quality and that

it is maintained at a high level of integrity.

55http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutMelbourne/ArtsandEvents/ArtsParticipation/Pages/UnionL

ane.aspx


33/46


Page | 33

Figure 22: Street art in Union Lane, November 2010xxiii

Figure 23: Street art in Union Lane, November 2010xxiv


34/46


Page | 34

4.2 Hosier and Routledge Lanes

Citylights Projects has maintained a number of light boxes in Hosier Lane as a

permanent open air art site since 1996. In the intervening years the site, and

adjacent Routledge Lane, attracted a lot of graffiti and street art, to the extent that it

became the most outstanding and notable street art location in Melbourne, as it

continues to be.

The City of Melbourne recognised the significance of this location in granting it two

Street Art Permits. The site continues to be the most vibrant gallery of Melbourne

street art due to both this reputation and to its being effectively curated by the

director of Citylights Project, Andrew MacDonald.

Figure 24: Street art in Hosier Lane, November 2010xxv


35/46


Page | 35

Figure 25: Street art in Routledge Lane, November 2010xxvi

4.3 Fitzroy / Yarra

A third area where high quality street art continues to thrive is within the City of

Yarra. In an informal arrangement between the Citys Engineering Department and

Napier Studio youth work program (detailed below), high quality curated street art

murals are executed at problem sites within the municipality. Notable mural sites are

at the corner of Liecester and Brunswick Streets Fitzroy, and the corner of Napier

and Johnston Streets, also in Fitzroy. The curation of these projects is currently

managed by Youth Arts Officer, Adrian Doyle.

Figures 26 & 27: Street art in Fitzroy, November 2010xxvii


36/46


Page | 36

Other locations

There are numerous other sites where quality street art can be found, but the

dynamic nature of graffiti, street art, bill postering, other advertising, real estate

development and other uses mean that any list of such examples would soon be out

of date. As examples, Caledonian Lane and Centre Way in the CBD have both at

times presented dramatic and attractive street art galleries, but now are both

reminders of their former glory as nearby real estate development has changed the

use of the spaces, and therefore the presence and quality of street art and graffiti.

In the case of Centre Way, the area which had previously become a graffiti gallery

had been a dead end used only for the storage of rubbish bins. More recently, a

doorway to a neighbouring retail development was installed, increasing through

traffic and use of the space. This re-use of the space seems to have accompanied a

decline in the quality of the street art and graffiti work there.

Figure 28: Graffiti and billposters in Centre Way, November 2010xxviii

In the case of Caledonian Lane, the Lane was previously home to a popular bar, St,

Jeromes. The bar and other shops on that side of the street have been recently

demolished, leaving open space (presumably awaiting redevelopment). This

demolition has deprived street artists of both a gathering point, and the privacy

necessary for the production of illegal work.

Another significant avenue of street art production is private commissions, which

decorate the outer or inner walls of businesses or private residences, usually in the

city and inner suburban areas. Notable examples of this include the one mentioned

above, of Banksys work on the inside of Revolver nightclub, and the Everfresh mural

on the side of the Night Cat in Fitzroy.


37/46


Page | 37

Figure 29: Everfresh mural, Fitzroy, November 2010xxix

Ultimately, the production of high quality street art relies on some measure ofprotection for its practitioners. Previously the best protection commonly available

was the measure of privacy available in a narrow thoroughfare at night. More

recently, however, private commissions and legal street art programs provide

greater protection, and therefore higher quality (though possibly more contrived)

street art.


38/46


Page | 38

Chapter 5: Management models

The graffiti management models of the Cities of Yarra and Melbourne are clearly

successful in both allowing the production of high quality graffiti and street art

murals, and in reducing the appearance of the less desirable forms of graffiti.

Reading solely from published policy documents, the management model of the City

of Yarra differs little from other municipalities espousing a zero tolerance

approach to graffiti. Yet in practice, a number of informal strategies allow the

proliferation of quality street art and ensure a reduced visibility for unwanted

graffiti. It is quite possible other municipalities are conducting similarly successful

management plans in a similarly informal way.

The City of Melbournes model is significant in that what in other municipalities are

informal arrangements are here embodied in published policy.

5.1 City of Yarras Management Model

The current City of Yarra graffiti management model does not depend on a published

policy document, but rather on an informal relationship between two sections of

Council; Engineering Services and the Napier Studio, a Youth Services program.

Engineering Services are responsible for routine removal of graffiti, especially in

high-use areas, and for responding to complaints about specific incidences of graffiti.

The Napier Studio is a Youth Services youth work program in which young people

practice graffiti and street art.

On its website, the City of Yarra recognises the effectiveness of public art murals as a

graffiti management strategy.56

By engaging young participants to execute public art

murals, usually in street art and graffiti style, the City of Yarra is providing three

services to the municipality. It is providing the participating young people with a safe

and legal means of artistic expression, it is providing the local community with high

quality public art, and it is providing Engineering services with a cost effective means

of managing sites which would otherwise be subject to frequent graffiti removal.

By engaging both young participants and established street artists to executecurated murals in problem areas, the Napier Studio (and comparable arrangements

within the City of Melbourne) not only perform these municipal functions, but

encourage ongoing excellence in Melbourne street art. These models, established by

the Cities of Melbourne and Yarra can be considered to constitute best practice in

terms of graffiti management policy that not only reduces unwanted graffiti, but

encourages the continuing production (and protection) of high quality, culturally

valuable street art.

56These [public art] projects are effective in discouraging graffiti while at the same time supporting

young local artists and contributing to the creative culture of Yarra.

http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/Services/Infrastructure/graffiti/Public-Art-Projects/


39/46


Page | 39

A number of other informal strategies have been recently trialled within Yarra to

respond to the potential cultural value of graffiti within the municipality. In recent

routine cleaning of Little George St, Fitzroy, Engineering Services liaised with the

Napier Studio to assess the site. The team reviewed the visible graffiti in the street,

and decided which should be removed and which should not. Napier Studios also

began the task of cataloguing potentially significant graffiti works within the

municipality, with the intention of the catalog being made available to Engineering

Services.

5.2 The City of Melbournes Management model

As noted above, the salient fact regarding the success of Melbournes graffiti

management is that the cultural significance of graffiti and street art is actually

represented in published policy. The Street Art Permit system not only provides

permission for future works, but also provides protection from removal for existingworks which have had permits granted. The Street Art Permit system is overseen by

Engineering Services, who liaise with building owners, artists and the Councils Arts

and Culture department as necessary.

Sources within the City of Melbourne have emphasized the multivalent and nuanced

nature of the administration of their program across a number of departments.

Unfortunately, a comprehensive and sophisticated analysis of the City of

Melbournes graffiti management program (beyond that contained above in Chapter

3) is beyond the scope of the current study, but an analysis of this kind is certainly

worthwhile as regards future Victorian policy development.

5.3 Analysis of Management Models

The success of these models depends on their use of legal public graffiti and street

art projects as a strategy that greatly reduces further vandalism of specific sites and

probably also diverts energies which otherwise might be illegally expressed.

This is an effective strategy because it is the meeting point between permissible

policy and graffiti cultures. Within the cultures of both graffiti and street art, wall

space is seen as a finite commodity. Attractive sites are highly sought-after, andcompetition for them is often fierce, sometimes even violent. To obliterate the work

of someone else is the fundamental act of disrespect. Yet attractive sites are often

crowded with work; which means that contributing to them often does mean going

over other peoples work.

A way for practitioners to negotiate this tension is by their giving priority to the

more accomplished work. It is more acceptable for practitioners that a low quality

work be replaced with a high quality one than vice versa. Legally painted murals are

almost always at the top of this graffiti food chain, and so the walls bearing them are

less likely to be tagged than nearby blank walls.


40/46


Page | 40

While making areas less subject to tagging one wall at a time might seem like a slow

and inefficient means of managing graffiti, it is found to rapidly reduce the expense

of maintaining problem sites. Over a number of sites, the reduction of this cost

annually is considerable. This has been found to be the experience of both the Cities

of Melbourne and Yarra.

Another possible reason for the effectiveness of these programs is that they may

well engage participants who might otherwise channel their creative energies into

illegal graffiti. When combined with the potential of serious legal consequences, the

prospect of being able to accomplish high quality output legally and in daylight soon

becomes the preferable alternative.

5.4 Documentation methods

We have seen that traditional conservation approaches to graffiti have failed andthat Municipal Councils have successfully implemented curated management

strategies. Given the low success rate of traditional conservation strategies, a

reasonable response that remains possible which might act to preserve evidence of

these culturally significant works is to document them.

The documentation of Melbourne street art is a popular hobby and a thriving field of

publishing. There is no shortage of photographic documentation of this material, but

there is no significant archival public repository dedicated solely to Melbourne street

art.

The City of Melbourne currently maintains a geographically indexed photographic

database of graffiti, which is not accessible to the public, for the purpose of auditing

and removal. It is the recommendation of this report that Government establish a

similar database, but one that is accessible to the public.

Such is the popularity of this genre that the public are more than happy to perform a

documentary function by photographing and publishing photographs of this work at

a great rate. This web site would provide both a repository for these photographs

and a system of cataloguing them.

A non-proprietary system called geotagging provides an effective arrangement for

cataloguing these works of cultural value. The website Bristol Graffiti Map

demonstrates this system.57

It shows a map of the City of Bristol, with pins in it. Each

pin corresponds to both a photograph of a work and its specific location. The user

clicks on a pin, and a photograph appears. This is the essence of geotagging; that the

data recorded (in this case, photographs of graffiti) are associated with, and

organised by, notation of their geographic location.

57http://www.bristolgraffitimap.com


41/46


Page | 41

Close management and administration of the site would allow it to function as an

effective graffiti management database, not only recording valuable works, but also

facilitating the removal of unwanted graffiti.

Given the problematic history outlined above of traditional conservation techniques,

it might be wondered whether the apparent hastening of the works destruction

would occur with a documentary website, as it did with attempts at Heritage

classification or physical protection. It is the opinion of this author that those

attempts at conservation failed because they singled out particular works as more

valuable than others. An archival website could be more democratic in its attribution

of value. The contested value of these works could be incorporated into the sites

design by allowing users to assess the works value. Given that the archive would

presumably represent the works of many artists, no particular works would

necessarily be singled out as being especially worthy of conservation over other

comparable works, and this would likely reduce the vandalism to works associated

with traditional conservation strategies.


42/46


Page | 42

Conclusion: Opportunities, Risks and Recommendations

It is a problematic fact that illegal graffiti and street art are sometimes culturally

valuable, ephemeral, and highly susceptible to environmental damage. There is no

current legal requirement to protect such work, though theoretically they can be

protected under the Heritage Act, provided they satisfy the significance assessment

criteria. The case of the Keon graffito discussed above suggests the risks involved in

this process.

Any Government management strategy must navigate between two risks: on the

one hand, being seen to condone illegal activity, and, on the other, inadvertently

destroying culturally valuable works.

Fortunately for State Government, these perilous regions have already been

negotiated at the municipal level. The example of the City of Melbourne shows that

it is possible to implement a graffiti management policy that incorporates anunderstanding of cultural value without significant risk of negative backlash.

Given the ephemeral nature of the works, the response recommended by this

report, of an archival web site, is likely to satisfy any reasonable demand to protect

them. That it does so without risking potentially unpopular and unsuccessful

attempts at conservation or legal protection not only takes into account the lessons

provided by recent history, but also has the added advantage of providing the

electorate with the impression of an interactive and responsive Government.

While its exact design and management remain to be determined, an archival website of culturally significant Melbourne street art has the potential to become a

valuable cultural document in its own right.


43/46


Page | 43

Notes and Bibliography

Statutes and policy documents

City of Bristol Graffiti Management Policyhttp://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=34126132

Current City of Melbourne Graffiti Management Plan

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/PlansandPublications/strategies/Documents/graffiti

_management_plan_2009_2013.pdf

City of Melbournes Draft Graffiti Policy2005

City of Melbournes Union Lane Project

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutMelbourne/ArtsandEvents/ArtsParticipation/Pages/UnionLa

ne.aspx

City of Yarra Public Art Projects

http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/Services/Infrastructure/graffiti/Public-Art-Projects

City of Yarras Whole of Community Graffiti Management Policy2004

Crimes Act (Victoria) 1958

Graffiti Prevention Act (Victoria) 2007

Summary Offences Act (Victoria) 1966

Publications

Avery, Tracey Values not Shared: the Street Art of Melbournes City Laneways , in Gibson and

Pendlebury (eds) Valuing Historic Environments, Ashgate, 2009, pp138-154

Brown-May, Andrew (ed) The Encyclopedia of Melbourne, Cambridge University Press, 2005

Cubrilo, Harvey and Stamer, King's Way: The Beginnings of Australian Graffiti: Melbourne 1983-93,

Miegunyah, 2009

Dew, Christine, Uncommissioned Art: The A-Z Of Australian Graffiti, Miegunyah, 2007

Ellis, RennieAustralian Graffiti, Sun Books, 1975

Ellis, RennieAustralian Graffiti Revisited, Sun Books, 1979

Ellis, Rennie The All New Australian Graffiti, Sun Books, 1985

Everfresh Everfresh: Black Book The Studio and Streets 2004-2010 Miegunyah, 2010

Heathcote, Christopher Discovering Graffiti, inArt Monthly Australia, September 2000, pp4-8

Smallman & Nyman Stencil Graffiti Capital: Melbourne, Mark Batty, 2006

Young et al Street/Studio Thames & Hudson, 2010


44/46


Page | 44

Films

Rash, directed by Nicholas Hansen, Mutiny Media, 2005

Jisoe, directed by Eddie Martin, Siren, 2005

70K, directed by Jamie Howarth, 2006

Websites

(accessed November 2010)

Alison Young Blog

http://imagestoliveby.wordpress.com/

Blog lists responses to the Hosier Lane Banksy removal

http://www.citylightsprojects.com/press/great-hosier-lane-banksy-debacle-compendium-links-articles-around-web

Bristol Graffiti Map

http://www.bristolgraffitimap.com

Chapman, Simon Civil disobedience and tobacco control: the case of BUGA UP Tobbaco Control, 1996,

5, p179-185

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1759523/pdf/v005p00179.pdf

Herald Sun Article on Street Art Permits

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/street-art-gets-nod/story-e6frf7kx-1111114739026

Lachlan MacDowell

http://www.graffitistudies.info/

Law Institute responds to Graffiti Prevention Act

http://www.liv.asn.au/about-liv/media-centre/Media-Releases/Letter-to-the-Editor--Portland-

Observer-Graffiti-L.aspx?rep=1&glist=0&sdiag=0

Melbourne Graffiti

http://www.melbournegraffiti.com

NGA Space Invaders Exhibition

http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/SPACEINVADERS/

Ninemsn notes overseas responses to Hosier Lane Banksy removal

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1045722/melbournes-banksy-blunder-mocked-overseas

Reuters Article on Banksy Sale

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL2531915420070425

Stencil Revolution

http://www.stencilrevolution.com/

The Age Banksy Interview


45/46


Page | 45

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/banksys-first-australian-interview-

20100528-wlj8.html

Wikipedia Alexamenos Graffito

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito

Wikipedia - Graffiti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti

Wikipedia Stencil Graffiti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stencil_graffiti

Wooster Collective

http://www.woostercollective.com/

Picture credits

Frontispiece: photo by the author

iPhoto by Chris Scott, reproduced with permission:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cgs327/4183967873/ii

Photo supplied by NTAV, reproduced with permission.iii

Photo by the authoriv

Photo by the authorv

Photos by the authorvi

Works by the author; photo by the author; photo by Chris Scott, reproduced with permission:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cgs327/4264119685/in/set-72157622721448704/vii

Photo by Chris Scott, reproduced with permission:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cgs327/4264105095/sizes/z/in/photostream/ viii

Work and photo by the authorix


http://www.flickr.com/photos/cgs327/4186739684/sizes/l/in/photostream/ x


http://www.flickr.com/photos/cgs327/4186739822/sizes/l/in/photostream/ xi

Photo by David Wignall, reproduced with permission:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/phoenixthestreetartist/4560603020/sizes/z/in/set-

72157623756476405/xii


http://www.flickr.com/photos/cgs327/4183967873/xiii

Photos by the authorxiv

Photo by the authorxv

Photos by the authorxvi

Photo by the authorxvii

Photo by the authorxviii


http://www.flickr.com/photos/cgs327/4069849449/sizes/l/in/photostream/ xix

Photo by the authorxx


http://www.flickr.com/photos/cgs327/4184727606/sizes/z/in/photostream/ xxi

Photo by the authorxxii

Photo by Johanna Hobbs, reproduced with permission:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/johannahobbs/431074335xxiii

Photo by the author


46/46


xxivPhoto by the author

xxvPhoto by the author

xxviPhoto by the author

xxviiPhotos by the author

xxviiiPhoto by the author

xxix Photo by the author