As I wrote last week, on 25 October the Facebook page Street Art Melbourne posted about Leicester St’s graffiti wall being buffed and covered in commercial advertising. Some of the commenters on the post suggested that this provided an opportunity to start again on the wall.

leicesterst20121 inciting criminal damage

On the night of 1 November the street was attacked by a graffiti vandal, and a concerned resident emailed me on 2 November to tell me about it. Her home, on the other side of Leicester St to the wall, also suffered from the attack. By the time I went to look at it they had removed the moronic tagging that defaced their wall and door, but the same vandal’s work remains evident on the white wall on the south side of Leicester St.

leicesterst20122 inciting criminal damage

The participants in the conversation incited this criminal damage, and should be held partially responsible for it. They need to know that the consequences of their selfish and deluded suggestion made the residents opposite very unhappy and wasted their time and money in having to clean their garbage off their home.

The owner of the white wall probably doesn’t care less because they’ve been paid by the poster company. The subhuman taggers deserve to be whipped for their selfish behaviour and forced to remove all evidence of their criminal behaviour, and their whining sympathisers, who claim that this is ‘art’ and has meaning, should be forced to help.

inciting criminal damage

4 thoughts on “inciting criminal damage

  • 7 November 2012 at 10:08 am

    Couldn’t agree more. As a resident of Fitzroy you accept the fact that there is a certain culture that promotes and embraces street art. This, however, is just plain vandalism and it’s sad and wrong they consider themselves “artists”.

  • 7 November 2012 at 7:09 pm

    AC, I’m not sure they consider themselves artists. I’m not sure they consider anything.

    Because of where I live, I look at this wall a great deal. While I chose to be in this neighbourhood partly because of the dynamic and really high quality street art, I’m yet to develop any stoicism from having to weather the battle for space between genuine effortful works and asinine tagging. Graffiti’s philosophy does not need to strike a necessary balance between great works and idiotic trumpet-blowing scribbles. An accomplished street artist does not have to be blooded in their craft by working their way up from this vandalism – it’s my hope that the best did not tread this path. Tagging is just an unnecessary visual tax forced on a neighbourhood that is open minded enough to (at least) tolerate its walls being ‘open source’.

    This latest effort on Leicester Street by Fitzroy’s moronia was characterised by greater than usual gratuitous obscenity (Dicknose’s departure having left a lot of headroom in that department). Call it a cry for help if you’d like. I think it’s a cry to be Tasared. Anyway, wanting to speed up the evolutionary process, yesterday I asked an artist working in the alley running off Leicester if he wouldn’t mind spray painting over all the (very large) F-bombs. He said he wouldn’t, but happily gave me a can of white spray paint accompanied by the directive to “make the universe your own”. So I did. I must have looked odd because I was cradling my infant son while spray painting. Maybe I can start a Fitzroy fathers’ group with this editorial vigilantism as its mandate…

  • 8 November 2012 at 11:27 am

    This is just mindless scribble, and the moderators of the community on Melbourne Street Art page are equally disappointed with this sort of mess. Sadly, there are those who think this sort of thing is appealing.

  • 11 November 2012 at 10:32 am

    Taggers are essentially thugs. How can tagging be regarded as anything other than an aggressive and intimidating act? Their anonymity makes their acts even more cowardly. It is clear that most building owners don’t want tagging, because if they did, it would be a simple matter to request permission to tag. In Fitzroy and the inner north more generally, some people want to drink in public, piss on buildings and in doorways, shout threateningly at passers by or start fights in the street – all of which are threatening and unwanted behaviours that also relies on a kind of anonymity in order to escape the consequences of that behaviour. The drunker ‘reveller’ or the tagger might claim to ‘not care’ about society’s strictures or even the possible consequences of their behaviour, but if that claim was true, the tagger would not need to be anonymous, or to run when spotted by the owner of the building they are tagging. Taggers undoubtedly do care … about themselves, their own desires and appetites, and their own egos.

    On a slightly different topic – to ‘The Sir’: I have no doubt that you were unaware of the danger, so please do not take this as a criticism – it’s rather my concern for you and your child as a neighbour. It is not safe to spray toxic acrylic or oil-based paints without appropriate filtered masks and this absolutely should not be done with children nearby, unless they have a mask with a respirator. I know graffers rarely seem to use them, but that doesn’t mean they understand the real risks. See:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *