THE PROPOSAL

Foreword.

Given that the opportunity that is being responded to here comes about without there being:

• ... Any overt or discernible public consultation process it is questionable that 'the project' has the social licence as yet for it to enjoy the 'legitimacy' it should/could have – and arguably needs to have; and

• ... Any semblance of a brief for potential cultural producers to develop a submission that might have relevance when it comes to determining what the commission parameters might be, who is best equipped to fulfil the expectations and how they might realise their proposal; and

• ... No apparent or discernible protocol that will lead to a development application being considered in open Council operating as a 'planning authority'.

It is not too long a bow to draw to say that in many respects the 'street art' being contemplated here has as much legitimacy as transgressive 'graffiti' that apparently the project aimes to circumvent/mitagate. Legitimacy theory posits that for a corporation, governing body, to continue to exist it must act in congruence with society's values and norms. In this case that is contestable. 

When there are ways to engage with a place's 'Community of Ownership and Interest' [LINK] outcomes are enhanced given that the values, sensitivities and sensibilities  invested in CULTURALlandscapes are honoured and respected.

All that said, there is a way forward given that it is early days. Mistakes will be made and unless they are there is no evidence that anyone is attempting to do anything of substance. Streetscapes without our cultural production, our voices being seen and heard would be diminishing and culturally desertifying. 

A WAY FORWARD

On the premise that it is acknowledged that in this instance the omnipresent and proverbial cart has yet again been put before the horse, albeit that there might well be a positive way forward. 

Alternatively, in the world of 'art criticism and cultural theory' there is a cliche that charactorised what seems to be in evidence here as PLOPart AKA PLONKart , [LINK] and it might well have been avoided, given the the CULTUALcargo the critique has on board.  Indeed, this is not a great place to be in if what is being attempted here is CULTURALlandscaping and PLACEmaking. More to the point, it is a circumstance that is within the realm of possibility to be avoided.

Sadly, it seems that there is a mindset in so much STREETart that apparently carries over from the transgressive mindset that is clearly in evidence with 'graffiti'. While graffiti is unwelcomed in so many ways, on the PLUSside of the ledger it is a SOCIALbarometer that tells, or should tell, civic planners much that they really need to know. The most successful STREETart has shares that transgressive edgyness with the 'in your face factor' graffiti has and is appreciated for having in the world anthropology cum cultural geography. So, if this 'place', this city, aims to be a leader in terms of CULTURAL landscaping the time is now to  stop the clock and rewind it.

The most damning critique waiting in the wings here might well be that 'the city', that is 'the Council', and all those it purports to represent along with them, are less than ordinary in regard to its cultural sensibilities and sensitivities. While this is not by neccesity so, it can be read that way. Indeed, it has been said by a Town Hall planner that, slightly paraphrased, 'cultural landscaping is a noun and not a doing word' (Pers Com circa 2021). The disconnect here speaks for itself given that at every Open Council Meeting, Councillors deliberate on 'placemaking' as they operate as a 'planning authority' – deeming the way that placemaking can happen here and over there. 

Without question, this carpark, this streetscape, this 'place', has an enormous 'Community of Ownership and Interest' [LINK] and whatever the outcome here it impacts upon the cultural capital that they, the people, have invested in all this over time. Moreover, as ratepayers and tax payers they, as 'stakeholders' , have skin in the game. It is not via the magic of the funding here that falls from the heavens as 'manna', it actually comes from the 'public purse' – yours and my pockets! 

NOW WHAT?

STEP #1 ... Albeit 5 minutes to midnight, stop the clock and start asking 'the people' the experts what they think and why!

STEP #2 ...  Initiate a meaningful community engagement or consultation process to garner what expectations and aspirations 'this place's' Community of Ownersiship and Interest are or might well be and why so! Moreover, as an outcome initiate a community education process to enable better understandings of the initiative and ideally under a the auspices of a title ... say PLACEproject XYZ ... GRAFsite Z42

STEP #3 ...Readvertise the EoI process ensuring that anyone or group who reponded to the intial has the opportunity to revise/revisit their EoI.

STEP #4 ...Given the contentiousness and transgresiveness that is a vitital element in both STREETart & Graffiti initiate a process, a local process, that will enable a more inclisive way forward to manage understand the time honoured role this class of CULTURALproduction fulfils and how it may be managed in 21st C cultural landscaping. Also, there is the need to mitigate 'its' most repugnant manifestations – that is mitigate not eradicate nor control. Policing has serially and surrealy failed, and is ever likely to, it is a task worth the effort. That is to put in the effort to better understand 'graffing' from a local social perspective. 

What can be achieved will remain unknown until or unless such a task is initiated. As that piece of vernacular wisdom states ... we'll never ever know unless we have a go!

SIDEconsideration ... Given the apparent opportuniy, there is possibility to reimagine this, or indeed almost any carpark, as a nudgelbah. So, what is one of those? ...  Click on this link to connect to other links.

[ldvFM]