Order 2689148: men and mental health in rural Australian farmers

THIS IS A SAMPLE OF ONE FRAGMENT FROM LITERATURE REVIEW. DO NOT QUOTE DIRECTLY TO

AVOID PLAGIARISM.

Reading 2 -

Iveson, K 2009, ‘War is over (if you want it): rethinking the graffiti problem’,

Australian Planner, vol. 46, no.4, pp. 24-34, viewed 16 July 2017, Routledge Taylor

& Francis Group, DOI10.1080/07293682.2009.10753419.

This article written by Iveson (2009), examines existing solutions to prevent graffiti

occurring in communities such as graffiti removal, surveillance in ‘hot spots’, stricter

penalties once youth turn 18, decreased access to spray paint, more roles for police

and murals or green screens (Iveson 2009). However, graffiti removal costs the

government over $100 million a year so less costly and more time efficient strategies

need to be implemented.

This article also pinpoints that the common distinction between what is good or bad

graffiti is whether it is authorised or unauthorised. This meaning that all unauthorised

graffiti works are viewed to be bad, notwithstanding the creativity (Iveson 2009).

However, the government has a zero-tolerance approach meaning that there is no

distinction between tagging on a bus stop and a creative mural. Cresswell (cited in

Iveson 2009) suggests that the distinction of graffiti should relate to the place in

which it is portrayed. If it is unauthorised to be portrayed in that place then that

should be the underpinning factor to distinguish that it is illegal and it would be

subject to the same legal measures regardless of the creative quality.

This article is relevant to our community project as it offers solutions to prevent

graffiti occurring in public spaces that can be useful to build on our knowledge of

what prevention strategies already exist. It also highlights the costly measures that

the government make to attempt to reduce graffiti, and with this information we can

try to design a solution that is less costly and time consuming. However, this article

does not present any current statistics to show whether graffiti is increasing or

decreasing and it does not provide any reasons for why graffiti may take place.

Reading 3–

Macdonald, N 2001, ‘The Graffiti Subculture Youth, Masculinity, and Identity in London and New York’, Palgrave MacMillan, viewed 19 July 2017, DOI10.1057/9780230511743.

This article written by Macdonald (2001) recognises the diverse theories behind what

makes the youth delinquent and that may then lead them in a deviant path resulting

in the creation of graffiti.

These theories include that graffiti is their way of voicing their emotions and passion

(usually anger), that rebelling (and or graffitiing), is a way of youth distinguishing their

own identities and constructing the ‘self’, that graffiti is a way of the male youth

expressing their masculinity and power and that graffiti may be a form of

communicating independence and becoming a ‘somebody’ instead of a ‘nobody’

(Macdonald 2001, p. 6).

This article is relevant to our community project because it goes into further depth of

what causes graffiti. It includes historical theories and studies that contribute to youth

delinquency and deviance that then may lead to the creation of graffiti writing. This is

useful for our community project focused not only on graffiti and why it occurs, but

also the initial social issues that are present that can result in the possibility of graffiti

writing. We, as a group, want to look beneath the surface of what causes graffiti and

underpin all the social issues that exist first, to be able to prevent youth graffiti.

However, this article does not provide any professional opinions and has not

conducted any studies to perfect the evidence they have provided about youth

deviance resulting in graffiti. Therefore, this article is useful for a general overview of

what may lead to graffiti, but a professional perspective is now required for our

community project.