![]() |
||
Patrick Girdler |
||
The same could be said for street art; as it is adopted and accepted into the Australian culture it becomes a contradiction of its true self. So, if street art is commissioned, it is a contradiction of itself, since ‘the message and meaning behind [street art] is a function of the conflict between artists and social standards’. To remove this conflict, therefore removes the message and meaning behind the work. The paradox then, is created by councils needing to manage street art to maintain social control, and yet allow for the inevitable expression of the masses without creating the above contradiction. An article posted on The Age website (23/06/08) reported on the National Trust’s idea to heritage list and hence preserve certain “culturally significant works in the [Melbourne] inner city”. While Melbourne would benefit from this economically, certain members of government and organizations responded negatively to the idea. Scott Hilditch of Graffiti Hurts Australia said, that it would, ‘[send] the wrong message that we as a society are going to be acceptable of vandalism’. This highlights a division between different groups in perceptions of street art, to be explored later on. It also represents a paradox created by societies’ attempts to maintain social order and control street art, while recognizing street art as a legitimate art form that is both ‘culturally significant’ and has ‘historical significance’. Art is subjective and street art can often evoke emotions of anger (at the destruction of property) and happiness (laughter at a clever piece). British stencil artist Banksy, arguably one of the world’s most [in]famous street artists also commented upon Melbourne’s laneways in the article, saying they are, “arguably Australia’s most significant contribution to the arts since they stole all the Aborigines’ pencils”. |