Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Your convenient chemist with the biggest range of Beanie Boo’s in CBR

Tagging churches?

By radonezh - 3 June 2009 37

I turned up at the Russian Church in Narrabundah two weeks ago and a large graffiti tag had appeared on the front entrance. 

Clearly this artist was looking for somewhere to express him/herself, but it would’ve been nice if he/she had’ve found somewhere else.

I must admit I’m a fan of calligraphic art, but not when it disrespects something else that is also an artistic expression (such as an architectural piece of cultural or spiritual significance).

It’s a real pain to have to remove this stuff and to be honest, reporting it to the police is tiresome and likely to get someone in trouble that they don’t want or need.

A bit more cultural sensitivity by the street artists out there would be wonderful.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
37 Responses to
Tagging churches?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Whatsup 7:14 pm 03 Jun 09

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Tagging churches is the same as tagging anything that some people place significance on. The OP refers to things that are significant, not just churches

So you missed the title of the post then? “Tagging churches?” Complete with incredulous ending-a-sentence-by-going-up-with-your-voice question mark? The OP has a beef with people tagging churches – specifically, his/her church.

If the post title had been “Tagging Caravans ?” would it have got the same reaction ? My mate was just as mad about his Caravan as this bloke is about his Church being tagged.

The thing about taggers is if you catch one and spraypaint his shoes, tracky daks, hoodie and hair they get really angry. Why is that?!

You could be onto something here.

BerraBoy68 6:32 pm 03 Jun 09

The thing about taggers is if you catch one and spraypaint his shoes, tracky daks, hoodie and hair they get really angry. Why is that?!

Holden Caulfield 5:31 pm 03 Jun 09

Keep on digging Woody.

Woody Mann-Caruso 5:07 pm 03 Jun 09

Tagging churches is the same as tagging anything that some people place significance on. The OP refers to things that are significant, not just churches

So you missed the title of the post then? “Tagging churches?” Complete with incredulous ending-a-sentence-by-going-up-with-your-voice question mark? The OP has a beef with people tagging churches – specifically, his/her church.

The amount of sandy vags on this site is astounding.

I thought the thread for AFL players was over there near the ladies toilet?

Davo111 4:34 pm 03 Jun 09

Spray on your own walls to “express yourself”

A mate of mine caught some young vandal tagging the rear wall of his house. Steve’s a big guy. He removed the aerosol from the teenager, and tagged him, including his “Kappa” jacket and hair.

Perhaps if a few more of us did this, the little fcks might get the message.

UrbanReality 4:02 pm 03 Jun 09

My parents are Russian, and as a kid was made to go the Russian church in Narrabundah, and I always saw graffiti drawn up the walls. I remember when we had “p*ofters home” (or something along those lines) on the gate for months and it kept going up every time the church took it down.I think most people learned to live with it, you can’t really stop them and considering where its situated its no surprise.

monomania 3:56 pm 03 Jun 09

peterh said :

If it was ok to deface a building, public or privately owned, canberra would look like a ghetto. it isn’t, so they shouldn’t. I don’t care if it is a church, house, pub, etc, it is wrong and they should be stopped.

perhaps the act govt could create big white backed walls around canberra and allow taggers to knock themselves out – filling in the white with their tags. (they may also be knocked out after turf wars erupt over which tags are better, and why did you tag over mine??)

+ 1

Few people here would accept that it was OK for people to express themselves by keying your car, throwing stones through your windows or blowing up your letter box. All of them repairable but a some cost and inconvenience to you. So what is so different about vandalising other peoples’ property by tagging.

Danman 3:50 pm 03 Jun 09

King Oath HC – People just like to argue a point.

I am sure they would get their neck out of joint if their house was tagged a lot more than their local shops, but they are both just buildings right?

Pommy B 3:49 pm 03 Jun 09

Tagging the taggers.

A mate of mine caught some young vandal tagging the rear wall of his house. Steve’s a big guy. He removed the aerosol from the teenager, and tagged him, including his “Kappa” jacket and hair.

The kids mother came round to complain that; “He’s a good kid, just having some fun, and that you’ll have to pay for his clothes and for his hair, and if you don’t we’re calling the cops and taking you to court!”

Steve then pointed out that before he paid a penny towards anything, she could pay to have his wall cleaned.

She went on about how he couldn’t prove it was her kid that did that, Steve gave the obvious reply.

In the end they agree to disagree. (In other words, she got fed up of bitching and whining and realised she didn’t have a leg to stand on, and dragged her moaning kid away with her.)

So folks, if public and private buildings are legit to tag, then so are taggers.

I’m game.

Holden Caulfield 3:45 pm 03 Jun 09

Whatsup said :

Tagging churches is the same as tagging anything that some people place significance on.

The OP refers to things that are significant, not just churches. A church was the example used which has resulted in some of you getting your knickers in a twist or jocks in a knot.

I am sure everyone would have something that they see as being special enough that they would not want to see tagged…

Exactly!

The amount of sandy vags on this site is astounding.

astrojax 3:36 pm 03 Jun 09

taggers and knitters should have a show down…

peterh 2:08 pm 03 Jun 09

If it was ok to deface a building, public or privately owned, canberra would look like a ghetto. it isn’t, so they shouldn’t. I don’t care if it is a church, house, pub, etc, it is wrong and they should be stopped.

perhaps the act govt could create big white backed walls around canberra and allow taggers to knock themselves out – filling in the white with their tags. (they may also be knocked out after turf wars erupt over which tags are better, and why did you tag over mine??)

Whatsup 1:55 pm 03 Jun 09

Tagging churches is the same as tagging anything that some people place significance on. The OP refers to things that are significant, not just churches. A church was the example used which has resulted in some of you getting your knickers in a twist or jocks in a knot.

I am sure everyone would have something that they see as being special enough that they would not want to see tagged. A mate of mine had his caravan tagged recently, man is he pissed off.

justbands 1:42 pm 03 Jun 09

> But churches are not just a building, like Uluru is not just a big rock.

Yes, they really are just buildings…really!

& Uluru really is just a big rock (although it does have historical significance & granted, is the only place I have ever felt any real spritual presence).

fnaah 1:36 pm 03 Jun 09

Surely the solution is banning spraypaint. Only a tagger could possibly have a use for it. Large textas should be controlled too. And possibly stickytape and photocopiers. Plus, better ban flour and water – billposters are just as bad.

(Okay, that’s enough reductio ad absurdum for me today.)

phototext 1:36 pm 03 Jun 09

“& nobody is saying that tags on churches are ok, just that they are no less ok than for any other building.”

But churches are not just a building, like Uluru is not just a big rock.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site