1

Assessment #3

Doreen Neo, Madeline Kilby, Chris Morse, Ruth Richards,

Collaborative Group Publication – ʻThe really cool design groupʼ Tuesday 1.30pm-3.30pm

Graffiti at Hosier Lane is the reason why Melbourne is regarded as the street art capital of the world. Since 1991, the City Lights Project has been taking dark alleys and turning them into galleries. This project was headed up by Andrew Mac who had a vision to have a part of this concrete jungle transformed into a platform of street canvas which is fit for public viewing.

Graffiti was not legalised till 2007. People started venturing out of riots and protests and started using art as an avenue for voicing out displeasure and opinions (Gibson & Pendlebury 2009). This is the relationship that has been established between the street art artists, their audience and this world. The street art of Melbourne was voted the most momentous input to the art scene of Australia. The National Trust of Australia (Victoria)(NTAV) deemed Hosier Lane as a laneway worthy of documentation. However, business, community and government group begged to differ. They perceived NTAV's move to be “condoning

2

vandalism” when the City of Melbourne sanctioned spaces for such art work (Gibson & Pendlebury 2009). This strategy of sanctioning spaces ensures productive behaviours as what is spray painted on the wall is always monitored an so it instills a sense of surveillance in the city.

Graffiti is seen as a reponse to the ever changing social movements around us. These street artists addressed the oppressed to make a public statement in the only medium available: the streets. Its search was not to form an audience, but for an arena to display the values of its audience. (Cockcroft, Weber & Cockcroft 1977) Therefore, graffiti forms imagined communities where only certain groups of the society could relate to its aesthetic opinions.

Graffiti created an arena which anyone could enter, make something of themselves and be somebody. It gave them an identity where they found appreciation for their work, a position of power and authority that is theirs to protect without the hindrance or judgement of the outside world (Cubrilo, Harvey & Stamer 2009). People everywhere sought to establish their sense of selfhood, their cultural identity and their own image. According to Latour, this act would be people finding meaning in the design of graffiti. The design of graffiti is made to be “interpreted as the language of signs” (2008). There is the process of interpellation where people identidy with the symbols, signs and pictures painted on the wall and feel like they belong to that imagined community. It is also part of the search for alternative means of communication in times of social upheaval, or when it is felt that the ordinary media does not serve this need.

Using design, street artists uses graffiti to redefine the idea of urbanity which includes skyscrapers and monotonous colors on buildings. (Scheepers 2004) In contrast, they take it down to street level where the

3

pictures engage in eye contact with its audience while splashing it with vibrant colors of paint. This action would have turned 'public space' into 'private space' by having the artist's personal opinion drawn on walls (Scheepers 2004). It is interesting to note that these artists get their inspiration from their surroundings, which is the city itself, therefore essentially it is communicating to the city about the city.

Vault is a sculpture created from steel panels painted yellow by Sydney artist Ron Roberston-Swann in 1980 and was installed in the Swanston Street public Square. It has been observed as a key part of Melbourneʼs cultural history (eMelbourne 2010). Contemporary art such as this was a new experience to the residents of Melbourne and was not received well. Public outcry at the modern art lead to it being labeled more commonly as Yellow Peril and it was moved to a tucked away location in Batman Park along the Yarra River and gradually became an eyesore covered in graffiti. The term Yellow Peril was originally coined to describe the threat western people felt in the 19th Century from the immigration of Asians who were seen to be taking jobs and gold and overpopulating previously white areas (Multi Cultural Australia 2007). Coining the artwork the racist term ʻYellow Perilʼ indicates that socially Melbourne in 1980 still had a level of racism acceptable within their social norms. The term seems highly appropriate as the outcry it caused

4

was due mainly to two reasons the first being that it was “modern and confronting” (White Hat 2010). The second main reason that caused outcry was due to the fact that it “didnʼt seem in sympathy with the surrounding architecture” (White Hat 2010). Despite this the Melbourne City Council of the time commissioned the installation and approved the plans as they believed it compatible with the square. The council set the design brief and were looking for something “bold, visually simple and strong in focal point” (eMelbourne 2010) and felt that the plans for Vault met the criteria. Despite the councilʼs approval it was in fact members of council who lead the movement for its removal (eMelbourne 2010).

The installation of vault and the controversy that followed it have lead to new restrictions being placed on public art installations in Melbourne. It must be of a smaller scale and unless the artwork is a temporary piece it must not be of a controversial nature. Hedger (1995) endorses this, and uses Vault as a case study for why careful selection of public art is so important. Many works of public art over time have caused controversy in Australia, however the works of Robertson-Swann have often come under fire. None, however have received the same attention and “turbulent history” (Hedger 1995) as Vault. Hedger (1995) claims it has become “part of Australian sculptural folklore”, indicating Melbourneʼs position nationwide as holding stand out pieces of art, whether it be for positive or negative reasons.

Vaultʼs removal from the City Square saw it being placed in the secluded Batman Park along the Yarra River. It became a canvas for graffiti and shelter for the homeless. Its removal said a lot for Melbourneʼs social relations at the time (Wallis 2004). The people protested and the council answered, placing a costly piece of art in such a position where it is going to waste. Wallis (2004) raises the idea that both socially and in terms of branding Melbourne claimed itself to be a

5

“city of the arts” however the unaccepting and closed minded attitudes towards Vault indicate that this was perhaps this claim was invalid.

In 2002 as Melbourne was embracing and learning to understand modern art Vault was moved to a new position outside the Australian Centre for Contemporary Art when the centre opened. The sculpture “challenged” (Wallis 2004) the people of Melbourne at a time when they were not yet ready to embrace such art work. The people of Melbourne, now have a more modern mind frame and familiarisation with contemporary art and have accepted the sculpture in its new position as it is in sympathy with the museum.

Melbourne Central (located on the corner of Corner Swanston and La Trobe street) is an example of Melbourneʼs up to date and modern buildings that are slowly dominating the cities heritage listed and older style buildings. What the majority of the public fail to realize is that there has been a huge amount of thought in the designing and meaning of this structure. Not very noticeable from the ground but from above, Melbourne Central is designed to look like a box, filled with a limitless amount of activities. Itʼs representation is clever in the fact that the box has been forced open by the amount of activity that is going on inside. It

6

is an artistic interpretation of just how exciting and special the center of Melbourne is. Within the walls there is a different meaning, an old-fashioned town square, underneath a glass spire, with a large clock being the main focus point.

It is a general overview that more recent architecture is more a commodity, to be dealt with, earn profits, then expire, like popular music and fashionable clothing. Buildings are designed and built in the knowledge that their use-by date will be 15 or 20 years later.

Melbourne Central has been severely affected by this attitude. In 1988 architects Kisho Kurokawa, Bates Smart + McCutcheon and Hassel, built a tall (in those days) skyscraper that homed a lower level shopping center at the bottom. This building was far from creative and did not last very long.

From day one Melbourne Central has lived in rather large shadow of Flinders Street Station. 2001 was the year Ashton Raggatt McDougall (ARM) received the challenge of redesigning the building. Their main aim was to hide the signs of ageing and show off some grand new plans while keeping some of the old architecture in place. This was a very hard process to work through and many designers and architects throughout the world to a vested interest into the grand plan.

By doing this ARM is able to install ʻMelbourniansʼ with confidence. That they are not out to destroy our history but to build upon it in a way that makes us realize just how lucky we are to live in a city where we cherish our finest attributes.

This updated system that ARM has managed to achieve has essentially put Melbourne Central on the map and bought Melbourne closer together as a society. They have made life easier for the public by

7

providing them with all their basic needs, (food, lifestyle and leisure) in one fantastic structure.

Other than telling us the exact details of their project ARM mention that Melbourne Central has officially become Melbourneʼs busiest commuter railway station.

They also said that their primary objective was to improve the relationship between the retail/commercial components and the existing railway station. ARM were baffled with the design as it was and couldnʼt understand why the previous architects wouldnʼt try to combine the train commuters and the shops as one. Detailed analysis of people movements, circulation and arrival and departure patterns were undertaken to create the successful change.

The new Melbourne Central, with all of its new “laneways” is providing a much improved direct and logical circulation system.

8

With its high arching ceiling, letting in the natural light through use of skylights, the Royal Arcade is not only the oldest arcade in the city of Melbourne, but in Australia. Designed by Charles Webb, who also designed the Windsor Hotel, it runs from its main entrance on Bourke Street, until it reaches Little Collins Street. An annex, which was added a few years after the main walkways construction, leads to Elizabeth Street. One of the arcadeʼs most recognisable features is Gaunts Clock and the figures of Gog and Magog, who strike the chimes every hour.

The Royal Arcade has not altered much over the years, but underwent a recent restoration and refurbishment, in order to preserve the regal and impressive façade. In terms of its design, this Victorian Period structure stands out from the much more modern shops surrounding it. To pay a visit to the Royal Arcade is almost like stepping back in time. Shoppers who choose to visit it are given a sense of what Melbourne was at the time of its construction. Sought out by both tourists and Melburnians alike, it is one of the main attractions in Melbourne today.

The Royal Arcade however is much more than a simple shopping destination. It is an urban space through which ʻmaterial objects, bodies and symbols move.ʼ(Fornäs et al. 2007 p.9). The Arcade is a passage in which media consumption occurs, but on a more high class scale than in a regular shopping centre. As Vanderburgh and Du Four (1999) tell us, in these places, originally the home of the flâneur, time was suspended and window shopping was encouraged. This idea of browsing and casual shopping is somewhat out of date. More modern stores are designed to pressure the consumer into buying something. This in turn would make the concept of a space specifically designed for the purpose of the ʻquintessential activity of walking along slowlyʼ no longer applicable to society today. However the Royal Arcade is still used. Not only do acts of consumption occur here, but also

9

communication. People interpret meanings from many different artefacts, such as displays in shop windows, products being sold, the conversations and body language of the people passing through (Fornäs et al. 2007).

The Royal Arcade is also full of intertextual references. The Arcade itself is, according to its listing in the Victorian Heritage Database, based on Italianate design and draws heavily on early English and French models. Also, the figures of Gog and Magog are based on similar statues at the Guildhall in London. Overall the Arcade is typical of many nineteenth century European examples.

It is clear from this that today, and even in the late 1800ʼs, Melbourne thinks of itself very much as a ʻworldʼ or ʻEuropeanʼ style city. Today the Royal Arcade remains a symbol of the City of Melbourneʼs consumerist culture. Also, despite Melbourneʼs need to constantly reinvent itself (this is clear with design artifacts such as Melbourne Central and Vault) it is clear example of how much Melbourne also prides itself on its heritage.

These four design artifacts have a similar purpose in creating the brand of Melbourne through a design aspect. Designers differ from other communication professions such as journalists and advertisers as they work towards aesthetic communication and often portray various meanings to the public inadvertently. The distinct differences between the four artifacts highlight the range of different perspectives of the city held by both the citizens of Melbourne and visitors alike.

10

References -

Fornas, J, Becker, K, Bjustrom, E & Ganetz, H 2007, Consuming Media: Communication, Shopping and Everyday Life, 1st edn, Berg, Oxford

Vanderburgh, D & Du Four, G 1999, ʻBrussels and the Arcades of (the) Capitalʼ, Parallax, vol.5, no.3, pp. 9-21

Heritage Council, n.d., Royal Arcade, Heritage Victoria, viewed 17 May 2010 < http://vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/#detail_places;1569

Melbourne Central renovation – ʻThe Ageʼ August 30th 2005 NORMAN DAY Melbourne Central Shopping Center – ʻThe Specifierʼ (http://www.specifier.com.au/projects/retail-and-entertainment/34411/Melbourne-Central-Shopping-Centre.html)

Melbourne Central Development (http://www.a-r-m.com.au/projects_MelbCentral.html)

White Hat 2010, Guide to public art in Melbourne, White Hat, viewed 10 April 2010, <http://www.whitehat.com.au/Melbourne/Galleries/PublicArt.asp>.

ʻVault aka yellow perilʼ, eMelbourne 2010 The City Past and Present , Viewed 10 April 2010, < http://www.emelbourne.net.au/biogs/EM02122b.htm>.

Hedger, M 1995, Public sculptures in Australia, 1st ed, Craftsman House, Roseville East.

Wallis, GJ (2004), Peril in the square: The sculpture that challenged a city, 1stedn, Indra Publishing, Briar Hill.

11

Multicultural Australia, 2007, Yellow peril, viewed 18 May 2010, <http://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au/hotwords/unpack/Yellow.Peril>

Gibson, L & Pendlebury, J.R 2009, Valuing historic environments, Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington

Cockcroft, E, Webber, J & Cockcroft, J 1977, Toward a People's Art, E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc, New York

Cubrilo, D, Harvey, M, Stamer, K 2009, The Beginning of Australian Graffiti, Melbourne University Publishing Limited, Melbourne

Latour, B. Keynote Lecture. 'A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design (with Special Attention to Peter Sloterdijk)', Design History Society, 3rd Sep 2008

Scheepers, H 2004, Graffiti and Urban Space, University of Sydney, Australia