I’ve previously posted on Rone’s fantastic collage of faces on Rose St, and after a few months of wind, rain and abuse it is getting ragged. I’ve also stated how much I detest tagging and how unwanted it is, whether it is on the walls of private property or on the work of talented artists. Deb’s work elsewhere on Rose St was attacked earlier this year and now Rone’s work has been defaced by a tagger. Rone disagreed with my comments about the value of tagging on a previous post. I wonder how he feels now?
12 April 2009 at 9:29 am
Tagging is crap and pointless (unless they’re bragging about how great their Prep teacher was at getting them to form letters aged 4!).
Tagging on top of other people’s work is simply destroying something they don’t have the talent with which to compete/imitate – destruction instead of construction, happens everywhere.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
12 April 2009 at 10:33 am
Again you just further push the fact you just don’t get it.
let me put this way for you…
…lets say you like Cars for example, maybe you don’t like all styles, they may be some you hate even but in general you like them then one day a friend of yours is seriously injured by a drunken driver in a car. Do you hate cars now? No that would be stupid wouldn’t it? you hate the idiot driving the car.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
12 April 2009 at 11:19 am
With respect Rone, I’d say it’s taggers that don’t get it. The comments posted here by people all agree that tags are always rubbish. There are no good tags. We hate seeing art being tagged over as well as private property being defaced.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
13 April 2009 at 12:11 am
Wow, this really gets people excited!
While I wouldn’t publicly condone drawing/writing on other people’s private property, I do personally enjoy looking at both the lower and higher end of the graffiti spectrum.
I don’t believe anyone can condone one act of vandalism in the name of art and not another because they don’t believe it has artistic merit – because artistic merit is completely subjective. What this does come down to is private property rights. If someone abuses those rights, it’s still abuse regardless of the intent or beauty of the piece. If you want to promote and endorse the freedom of street art, it’s logically unsound to want to back someone’s work and censor others because you don’t believe they’re important or that they’re in bad taste.
Moving on from property rights, have you also considered that perhaps some of your favoured street artists tag or have tagged in the past? Letterform is a large part of the street art community that overlaps with everything in it. Yes, it can be extremely ugly, aggressive and confrontational but it’s still integral to the art form.
Although I don’t believe I can change your opinion on tagging, Brian – I would like to know your ultimate position on defacement of public property and depending on that answer, why you believe some street artists should have more rights than any other street artist?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
13 April 2009 at 12:31 am
I don’t condone vandalism of private property. I have questioned and discussed the ethics of this in relation to Meggs’ and Rone’s pasteups on the Brunswick St wall of the Sutton gallery, which I think was inappropriate.
Street artists who have posted comments here are also known as taggers: you can see the tags of various Everfresh artists and others around Fitzroy. The overwhelming majority of people view tagging as devoid of artistic intent or merit. If art is a form of communication, tags communicate nothing but the functionally illiterate mumblings of anti-social vandals.
Works on public property like streets signs are different in that they offend no particular individual property owner. Choosing a publicly owned site like a street sign for street art does not justify it; it merely does not offend any individual property owner. In many cases, property owners are not offended by interventions that would be considered art by most people.
We also need to recognise that many of the most loved works on Fitzroy walls are commissioned or otherwise legally sanctioned works, and their existence does not legitimise other people vandalising other spaces. These are complex issues, which is why I am trying to encourage dicussion and debate about them.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
13 April 2009 at 1:41 am
Isn’t the main point here, and am I right in thinking, that historically, generally, graffiti artists have abided by a loose moral code whereby they don’t deface private property whereas taggers adhere to no such code? And I don’t mean in a kind of cool anarchistic subculture way. Attempting to validate this pointless, ugly shite by suggesting that it’s a variation of a recognised art form is entirely laughable and is frankly an insult to the talented. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the world would be a poorer place if we didn’t have tagging on an industrial scale? Try telling that to the many property owners who are confronted with this crap on their wall or fence, even windows for god’s sake. It’s like calling vomiting or pissing in public an art form. Tagging is abusive and its victims (the ordinary public) have no real way of defending themselves against it. How is that cool or justified? Apologists, please explain….
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
13 April 2009 at 11:03 am
Saw a great little bit of graffiti as a community message on a billboard at Malvern Station recently -
“Fresh. For f***s sake. Stop drinking!”
Wowsers and graffiti artists 1 – binge drinking brigade 0
;)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
8 September 2009 at 12:54 am
Perhaps the tagging that is most objectionable is that done by people with no impulse control…? I would LOVE to say that would be the youngns but thats not going to be the full story is it??? It would probably be the least thought out of all street art, and indeed on the whole, have the least artistic merit… although some hand styles are superb.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0