please empty your brain below

the language they have used on that quoted bit is depressing, maybe they could do something to change people's perceptions that graffiti means an area is unsafe, and not add even more negative ones about anti-social behaviour and crime. i doubt that graffiti itself makes people feel intimidated and frightened.
Couldn't agree more. This is on my daily commute and they have removed something which was genuinely interesting and harmless. A shame to see my taxes wasted on this.
I have never liked seeing graffiti, if people want to paint walls with "art forms" they can go to allocated places or paint their own walls and fences.
Defacing public and private property without permission must be wrong.
The council could have chosen a brighter colour but to my eyes the bridge looks better without the graffiti scrawls. Pity about the fence, perhaps it will be removed later.
Graffiti is a criminal offence

Is it specifically an offence ? Or is the offence "criminal damage" ? If the latter and you spray over an already totally sprayed on wall have you actually, in law, caused any criminal damage ? Just curious.
I agree with John.
Appalling! I had always assumed that that graffiti wall was officially sanctioned. It really did brighten up that stretch of Greenway. How ironic that over in Hackney graffiti walls are positively encouraged as part of the art fuelled regeneration.

Regeneration in Newham? Let's have the biggest McDonald's in the world please, not people brightening up their streets with their own creativity.....
There are a couple of points here. The first is the truism "adds to people's perceptions that an area is unsafe". Now you may know different, but I've never heard of a granny being duffed over with a rattle can, and generally the artistic temperament doesn't sit that closely with violence. However, graffiti is a "crime" and therefore the artists are likely to do it in circumstances where they are not going to be disturbed by the Boys in Blue or these days, Imitation Boys in Blue. (You REALLY can't trust a special like an old time copper). So the association has some basis in fact.

It's also unfortunately true that numbers of people have been assaulted and robbed on this section of the Greenway and it can feel very threatening.

I have no love for Newham, and I really don't think putting up a fence is a good way of spending council funds, but if by doing it they manage to reclaim this stretch for the general public, then losing the bright colours is a price I'm prepared to pay.

Oh, I do think they are doomed to failure and the exercise is a waste of money, but I can see why they are trying.
The fact is that whatever you think about the end result when an individual sprays paint onto something that they do not own then it is wrong. If I were to spray paint onto the clothes of most taggers then I would probably end up with a punch in the face. Some idiot recently sprayed his name across my garage door and it took me over an hour with a costly tin of graffiti remover to get rid of it, I did actually like the artwork on this bridge but without permission it is not right to go ahead and do it, I love a great deal of the graffiti art that we all see across london but what I detest is the pathetic tags that get sprayed all over the place.
I'm really surprised by the reactions here. Have any of you actually seen this wall?
The graffiti was of high quality and really brightened the place up. It did not make the place feel threatening, quite the opposite. I feel much more threatened by a grey wall and a man in a van than by teenagers being artistic.
and *they* are adding to the perception that just because a kid wears a hood and likes graffiti, then they are automatically a criminal who like to indulge in anti-social behaviour.

talk about spraying them all with the same spray-can ...
@Dan - I'm surprised by your surprise.... yes, I've seen the wall, and DG has helpfully included some photographic representations. It doesn't make me feel threatened, it's just irritating 'noise'; nothing quality about it. If people want to be artistic, go do it on your own wall at home....
Newham have missed a trick here. Employing local graffiti artists to create a new, huge mural on this site - with the stipulation that it be somehow 'Olympic-themed' - would've cost a fraction of the price of installing a totally ineffectual barrier, painting the area grey and hiring a security guard.
there's an official graffiti area on the south bank. anything added remains till obliterated by more graffiti. why can't every borough provide such a facility?
Well, just from looking at the pictures, I far prefer it without any graffiti.
Oh the irony what with the Olympic logo seemingly inspired by graffiti tagging.
I notice someone has still managed to tag the road.
Joyless spoilsports! I agree with Richard, Newham has missed a golden opportunity there.
Out walking some years ago we came across a group of "officially sanctioned" graffiti artists working on the bridge and very pleasant the result was. Unless it is racist, sexist or otherwise offensive, graffiti generally livens up dull areas - Newham do not appreciate art!
Excellent point from 'O' about the incredible irony of it all. As The Guardian noted five years ago, "The fact that new logo resembles a graffiti tag is presumably an effort to reach out to younger fans".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/jun/04/Olympics2012.politics

So, basically, there are those who are happy to appropriate a little bit of graffiti/street culture before obliterating an example of said graffiti/street culture beneath a sea of grey paint. Tuh!

Seeing tags scrawled on walls and tube train interiors *is* unsightly. But, personally, I'm always impressed by the vividness, inventiveness, creativity and (presumably) untrained design flair of many of these illustrated murals. Who wants grey when you can have colour?
I agree with Newham Council. I don't feel at all safe seeing people with spray cans damaging other people's property. Glad to see Newham Council doing something right for a change.
Wow. Long time reader - first time poster, as this is really just round the corner from me.

Like Dan, I'd always assumed that the graffiti on this bridge was officially sanctioned - partly because I'd never seen any attempt to remove it before, but mainly because it's always been decent stuff. If not quite your cup of tea, then you can at least appreciate the craft (or not)

It's worlds away from mindless tagging anyway. And surely this just means the graffiti kids will just go and find another abandoned corner of East London to go and spray paint.

I'm assuming post Olympics - the man in the van will go away, and things will go back to normal?
I didn't have too much of a problem with the graffiti. The 2nd picture doesn't look too bad, much better than the grey wall.

My main gripe was the surface of the path on that stretch - horribly rough & totally impossible to skate on! You can see it in the 1st picture, it added to the general feel of an unkempt area.

Does anyone know if the stretch has been resurfaced?
Sorry but you can't keep making exceptions to the rule.
Overall graffiti is just defacing property and gives people the idea that they are above the law - not something worth promoting.
If anything I think it should be enforced more seriously.
Hmmm. I suppose it depends where a thing is. As a biker, I'll pay good money to go to a motocross meeting with all its atmosphere and noise. However, when I hear some oik on a bike ripping up my local park, I'll be among the first to be on the phone to the police.
I think what we're looking at here is accepting or denouncing something on the basis of whether we perceive it as 'lawful'
Given the comments here, so far, it's probably not surprising that some of the views are perhaps more subjective than objective.
While we're on the subject perhaps the relevant council can set to work in the Hackney Wick area. I'm fed up with those 'big teeth' everywhere.
I've also heard that a lot of the paint used for casual graffiti is shoplifted/stolen. Given the price of spraypaint these days I'd be surprised if any was purchased by the users.
I wish they could find somethng else for these jobsworths to do - like being security guards for the Olympics .
whatever the semantic legal position of graffiti or tagging this is a criminal waste of public money as it cannot achieve anything other than briefly enhanced profit for the security contractor - idiocy of the lowest order
Maybe they're leaving it clear in the folorn hope a Banksy appears.
Oh, for goodness sake. Make this the official location for grafitti artists to operate - so it is not illegal here - and crack down on them everywhere else. Simples.
I mentioned the official south bank graffiti site earlier, I'm sure there are others elsewhere. But designs on these do get covered up quite soon by others, so anyone using them knows it's not going to last long. Also there may be a rebellious attitude about using it because it's approved. But I agree with Andrew that this would be a good place for Newham's official site.
amber's comments noted. Another location is the walkway at Leak St at Waterloo, where the first Cans Festival was held in 2008.
That is also 'approved' and mainstream to the point that it is regularly used as a location for music videos, but this has done little to diminish its attraction to artists.
Approved locations are certainly capable of serving the purpose they're created for. Obviously they don't eliminate problem graffiti in the areas around them completely, but I'd guess they can reduce it as opposed to increasing it, if artists are provided with somewhere to focus their energies.










TridentScan | Privacy Policy