Putting aside legality and guilt on the matter of ‘Pam the Bird’, …
Street Art/Graffiti Art - for as long as it’s been considered an offence - was always a ‘backstreet’ activity.
Always avoiding the main and thoroughfare where most pedestrians (including property owners) see, but in plain sight to those that take the alleyways and backstreets. Still an ‘offence’ but tolerated.
The only time graffiti was usually on the main and thoroughfare was as acts of civil disobedience/protest or delinquency.
Eventually came the popularisation of graffiti, as artistic expression became more common. This started to blur the lines between the ‘tolerated’ and ‘not tolerated’ areas. And with this popularisation, soon followed the ‘legitimisation’ of graffiti - mutually agreed contract of services between Property rights holder and Artist.
… and this is where ‘Pam the Bird’ artist(s) crosses the line. Unauthorised graffiti of surfaces that are in plain sight from the main and thoroughfare, outside of the ‘tolerated’ areas. Is it an act of civil disobedience/protest or mere delinquency? Who knows, considering the lack of agreement with Property rights holder(s)
Many other street artists have considered how to ‘legally’ engage on such surfaces or make their work ‘tolerable’. Which is where the use of temporary/semi-permanent/removable mediums like ‘Chalk’ and ‘Paper Stencils’ came about.
So, what will the alleged ‘Pam the Bird’ artist(s) do after their judgement? God knows.
Their first worry is whether each of the alleged ‘offences’ are properly and fairly attributed to them.
#GraffitiCulture #ArtCulture #StreetArt #AusLaw #VicLaw
Ken S
