Graffiti watch – Something we could live without

johnboy 7 January 2008 46

As seen on various footpaths in the Inner North:

Interesting choice of colour, are they trying to be ironic? Also it appears to be painted rather than sprayed so my money’s on an old nutter rather than stupid kids.

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
46 Responses to Graffiti watch – Something we could live without
terubo terubo 2:50 pm 01 Mar 07

I recommend an annual storm-drain decorating competition as part of the Celebrate Canberra festival.

RandomGit RandomGit 1:38 pm 01 Mar 07

You live and learn eh?

mutley mutley 1:33 pm 01 Mar 07

No offence but manga isn’t my usual source of accurate information.

That said, I’ve done a little research and yes, the above pictur is an example of the bad swastika, although historically both right and left facing had been used in different cultures.(oh and to show I wasn’t completely mistaken, apparently Nazi ensigns had through and through format, meaning that one side was right facing and the other was left facing.)

win-win situation!

And I agree with Johnboy in that the person that painted this probably wasn’t fully aware of the nuances I have mentioned above.

johnboy johnboy 1:05 pm 01 Mar 07

However the ignorance of the average neo nazi makes it a dangerous thing to rely on.

RandomGit RandomGit 1:02 pm 01 Mar 07

Mutley, no. That is correct.

I have a little manga here called Blade of the Immortal that explains it all very nicely. The tines pointing the other way (counter-clockwise) represent the Japanese Buddhist version called the manji.

West_Kambah_4eva West_Kambah_4eva 11:48 am 01 Mar 07

I think we can all agree that this particular piece of graffiti is proof that there is an underground society of neo-nazi molemen living in the storm water drains of Canberra. The question is: Do we impose a police state immediately, or do we only round up all the molemen first?

johnboy johnboy 11:45 am 01 Mar 07

irregardless |ˌiriˈgärdlis|
adjective & adverb informal

ORIGIN early 20th cent.: probably a blend of irrespective and regardless .

USAGE Irregardless, with its illogical negative prefix, is widely heard, perhaps arising under the influence of such perfectly correct forms as: irrespective. Irregardless is avoided by careful users of English. Use regardless to mean ‘without regard or consideration for’ or ‘nevertheless’: | I go walking every day regardless of season or weather.

mutley mutley 11:39 am 01 Mar 07

aren’t the arms going the wrong way for a Swastika?

S4anta S4anta 11:24 am 01 Mar 07

not true. sorry.

S4anta S4anta 11:23 am 01 Mar 07


dont forget that the blokes who were referred to in bonfires(?) article were anti-nuclear protestors, not the spray paint carrying – baggy pant wearing variety.

Mr_Shab Mr_Shab 10:50 am 01 Mar 07

Bonfire – I thought the Mac was the standard Australian Dictionary? Or do you prefer to recognise primacy of the Queen’s English.

Once again bonfire – if the owner of the property says it’s okay to paint there, it’s legal. It’s not your property so you don’t have to like it.

If the property’s owner says it’s not okay to paint somewhere, it’s vandalism. Pretty simple, really.

When goober in Melbourne broke into that train yard, he was doing it as a vandal. When he charges $800 for a graf piece, he’s an artist. Rather like you driving 150kmh at Oran park, versus doing the same on the Tuggeranong Parkway.

That said, I reckon the ACT government should make all storm water drains fair game for “urban artists” (subject to obscenity laws, naturally). I’d say it would cut down on tagging on private property and would pretty the place up a bit. I reckon it’d be cool to see a bit of “chalk artwork” (done in paints) next to a ludicrously colourful graf piece.

Beats grey concrete.

sim_m_o sim_m_o 10:43 am 01 Mar 07

“its in the oed.

kiss my arse, irregardless of your googling.”

I find it incredible how quickly people revert to aggressive juvenile language here.And the word is erroneous, despite your oxford dictionarying.

What is also interesting is that the same arguments used in contravening property rights involved in trespass, an act which bonfire so loves, are similar to that put forward by graffiti artists.

Danman Danman 10:27 am 01 Mar 07


bonfire bonfire 10:25 am 01 Mar 07

the chalk thing is ok. i kind of like those.

especially those 3d ones

and yes, they are not permanent stains on private or public property.

bonfire bonfire 10:24 am 01 Mar 07

lg its in the oxford english dictionary.

its a real word.

LurkerGal LurkerGal 10:12 am 01 Mar 07

irregardless is not a word.
And this graffiti is f*(king disgusting.

astrojax astrojax 9:41 am 01 Mar 07

how about ‘urban decorator’??

and what say those who oppose graffiti to those works done entirely in chalk – which washes off pretty easily..?

Mr_Shab Mr_Shab 9:05 am 01 Mar 07

I’d go for “urban painter” over “graffiti artist”. Sounds much more street – “graffiti artist” has too many connotations of dodgy guys in hoodies; or high-top sneakers and other 80’s cheese.

The fact of the matter is that I’ll never be either, cause I don’t have an artistic bone in my body…

vg vg 9:58 pm 28 Feb 07

But I’m not saying the above would ever be in a right place

vg vg 9:58 pm 28 Feb 07

Graffiti by it’s very nature is illegal. If it’s done legally it is a ‘painting’. I’m guessing ‘urban painter’ doesn’t sound as fully sik as graffiti artist though.

In the right place some of this ‘art’ looks pretty good.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site