Canberra’s first light rail vehicle arrives under police escort

JC said :

Capital Retro said :

The line between “mural”, “graffiti” and “vandalism” is very fuzzy in the ACT.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/police-investigate-removal-of-art-mural-20070418-8am.html

There is also a very lengthy thread on the old RiotACT about this incident.

Really? Would have thought the meaning of the word vandalise was quite clear and the article you linked to doesn’t change that meaning in any way shape or form.

Graffiti however is a form of art, not to my liking btw. However like all forms of art there is a right and a wrong place to do it. Do it on public or private property for example it is vandalism. By the same token if Picasso painted an artwork on the side of a tram without permission that too would be vandalism. Same with cleaning up graffiti that was authorised and paid for by a sporting club.

If you read the report at this link http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-05/canberra-embraces-graffiti-with-street-art-coordinator/7142848 you will note there is reference made to “TAMS supervising 23 LEGAL graffiti locations in Canberra”. Graffiti is a very subjective thing as you indeed allude to. From the brief reports that are now coming in about the “vandalising” of “el tram sagrado” indicates whatever was inscribed on it was small in size and it was removed rapidly so there is really no problem. There are plenty of other places around Canberra where graffiti (including tags) has been for years and the government has made no attempt to remove it. The same government has recently painted multi-coloured rings at a roundabout in Braddon – that’s public property and I don’t recall ratepayers being asked permission for that so is that vandalism? Bit of a double standard here perhaps?

I don’t know why you channelled Picasso – there was another famous Spanish artisan who would be better suited to mentioning with trams and that was Gaudi who was actually run over and killed by one outside his still unfinished Cathedral in Barcelona.

Capital Retro said :

The line between “mural”, “graffiti” and “vandalism” is very fuzzy in the ACT.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/police-investigate-removal-of-art-mural-20070418-8am.html

There is also a very lengthy thread on the old RiotACT about this incident.

Really? Would have thought the meaning of the word vandalise was quite clear and the article you linked to doesn’t change that meaning in any way shape or form.

Graffiti however is a form of art, not to my liking btw. However like all forms of art there is a right and a wrong place to do it. Do it on public or private property for example it is vandalism. By the same token if Picasso painted an artwork on the side of a tram without permission that too would be vandalism. Same with cleaning up graffiti that was authorised and paid for by a sporting club.

The line between “mural”, “graffiti” and “vandalism” is very fuzzy in the ACT.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/police-investigate-removal-of-art-mural-20070418-8am.html

There is also a very lengthy thread on the old RiotACT about this incident.

Capital Retro said :

Heavs said :

It’s pretty funny that it’s already been tagged. Someone must have been just waiting for it to arrive to be the first to get their tag on it. Respect.

Was it tagged or vandalised?

WTF?? “Tagging” *is* vandalising, there is no differentiation. It is not art no matter how the pseuds and pointy heads might dress it up with things like “Banksy” et al, and we should just get over this residual attitude that there is somehow something noble and culturally significant about this antisocial and destructive behaviour.

Heavs said :

It’s pretty funny that it’s already been tagged. Someone must have been just waiting for it to arrive to be the first to get their tag on it. Respect.

Was it tagged or vandalised?
The Canberra Times front page article states it was targeted by “graffiti vandals” which is a contradiction in terms when one considers the soft and sometimes encouraging attitude this government gives to Canberra’s “graffiti artists”.

What needs to be investigated is the apparent lack of security to protect the ratepayers’ investments; I have deliberately refrained from using the word “assets”.

I can remember Christmas 1951 when my Hornby clockwork (that’s a renewable energy source btw) toy train arrived via Santa Claus. I was thrilled, for a few days.

My mother and my older brothers were annoyed because it got in the way of established methods of commuting from room to room in our house.

I wrote to Santa and thanked him because I didn’t have any money to pay for it.

I see today a lot of parallels in Canberra.

It’s pretty funny that it’s already been tagged. Someone must have been just waiting for it to arrive to be the first to get their tag on it. Respect.

And already vandalised. Dungers was that you?