Assessment Task 3 - Zach, Ratirach, Emelia, KB, Georgia

COMM2411 - Communications and Social Relations Assessment Task #3 – Group Artefact Analysis

Emelia Wong (s3246957) Georgia Sampson (s3241926) Katherine Buzza (s3238062) Ratirach Wuttipappinyo (s3264518) Zachary McSweeney (s3239941) Tutor: Ashley Perry Lect ure r: Brian Morris Tutor ial Ti me: Friday, 10:30am.

Classification: Design

Artefact #1: Title: Melbourne’s Graffiti Analyt ical Description Graffiti is a diverse art form present extensively throughout the Melbourne city, therefore is an appropriate and relevant artefact based on its prevalence and cultural significance. Throughout it’s history, Graffiti has either been defined as Vandalism or Art. Local artists and modern Melbournians, who want to express their thought, creativity and feeling, produce these works and display them within the public realm where they are easily accessible. Graffiti is not only aesthetically pleasing, but is also a ‘sign’ containing symbols within the image, which represent a deeper, more subtle purpose, requiring decoding.

It demonstrates the creativity, modernity and culture of Melbourne and is also used as a means of communicating political and social messages, which are embedded within its artistic design.

Graffiti can be superficially interpreted by its obvious surface presentation, but it also signifies individual fragments contributing to a vast spectrum of interconnected ideas, which strive to re-design the projected image of Melbourne, as a whole. For example, graffiti has been used during the protest of the Gulf War, the destruction of old-growth forests, trends in corporate downsizing or job losses. It also informs the public of the events of mass rallies and other causes. (M & Young 2002, p.6) There are more acceptable ways of seeing graffiti in Melbourne as an artwork. As a report states in That’s Melbourne, the MCC uses graffiti to promote a city on its tourist information website where it declares: “Culture capital, graffiti capital, open air art gallery… [is experienced by people] just by walking down the street.” This appears to represent what people will experience from walking in Melbourne’s laneways, giving them a chance of absorbing Melbourne’s design and culture.

The majority of graffiti is located publicly due to the intentions of it being seen. Although it has a vast history, Graffiti is represented by the new generation, explaining new experiences individuals may have within Melbourne’s laneways.

Artists desire to experience the city by expressing their creativity on the physical

landscape, creating a new personality about the city’s design. For example, the graffiti wall at Melbourne central exudes vivacity, where everything is neatly displayed. This contrasts to the changing ambience of the street between Union Lane and the entrance to the department store. (Jeff Stewart, p.18) Melbourne’s Graffiti is seen to beautify and generate life into the grey colourscope of the city and its visitation is an experience on its own. By immersing into the laneways, individuals can create an unplanned urban “art gallery” experience of their own. (Bate 1994) Graffiti inserts life into a city and shows a lifestyle of Melbourne as being colourful and artistic. Two famous street artists, Haha and Vexta, have said, “We focused on Melbourne because it seemed to be the most dynamic area of stencil art” in Sydney Morning Herald, 9 April 2007. Graffiti is an art form, which is constantly renewed or painted over in due course when the original artworks become outdated. It shows that there is a generation of people who are aiming to re-design their city with their own personality. Graffiti is a strong aspect of Melbourne’s identity, which communicates Melbourne as having an art culture that can transform a historical city towards modernity.

Referenc es Bate, W 1994, Essential but Unplanned: the Story of Melbourne’s Lanes, Melbourne: State Library of Victoria/City of Melbourne.

Halsey, M & Young, Alison 2002, ‘The Meanings of Graffiti and Municipal Administration’, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, vol.35, no. 2, pp. 165-186.

Jinman, R 2007, ‘Street art moves to a posh new hang-out’, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 April 2007.

Stewart, J, ‘Graffiti vandalism?’, Street art and the city: some considerations, UNESCO Observatory, pp. 86-107.

Artefact #2: Title: The Vault Sculpture (Nicknamed “The Yellow Peril”) Analyt ical Description Created from large sheets of steel, this overwhelmingly bright, yellow-coloured sculpture rests on Grant Street in Southbank, Melbourne after being relocated twice from its original intended position in the newly forming City Square in 1980. The Vault’s physical existence in Melbourne today is a reminder of the controversy that surrounded the sculpture around 1980 when abstract artist, Ron Robertson-Swann, created it to be the main art attraction in Melbourne. (Wallis 2004) Nicknamed “The Yellow Peril” after an old racist slur, it soon formed an identity that highlighted a city in crisis. (Williams 2000, p. 327)

The placing of The Yellow Peril in the newly forming city square is not so much the Melbourne City Council trying to design the particular section of the city, but argued an attempt of re-design, reflecting the current society upon the existing physical landscape of Melbourne. As Melbourne was going through key transformations in urban design, this sculpture signifies the individuals who represent the city are “…working together to redefine the cultural centres of the inner city.”

(Williams 2000, p. 326) These facts support the generalized theory that all design is actually re-design.

The social implications generated by The Yellow Peril revolved around its public placement. As its situation in the city square represents an attempt at connecting universally with a generalized audience, it produces interpretations of many possible readings, as all public art will execute. (Miles 1997) Melbournians are confronted with interpretation through its visual existence in the square; it is “encountered by diverse publics who have […] no contact with art galleries, though

they may be adept at reading the codes of mass culture.” (Miles 1997, p. 14) The public positioning of the sculpture almost forced the locals to generate opinion, as this work of art was a representation of their city of Melbourne. Its abstract form is one that fuelled questioning and protest, as the public found it difficult to deduce a concrete meaning underneath its aesthetic physicality; there was assumed no purpose as to its erection within the city. (Wallis 2004) While the attention-seeking sculpture rapidly became recognized as a symbol of the city, at the same time it became infamous as the negative opinions outweighed the positive in terms of the public’s reaction to the work. The sculpture was created as a strategy to form Melbourne’s identity as a modern city of the arts; however, the public was divided over personal opinion towards the piece and this strategy was overshadowed with tactics that demonstrated negativity. (Wallis 2004) As the Williams article demonstrates, purely its nickname of “The Yellow Peril” expresses the trending outlooks of the public at the time, suggesting, “…it seemed to represent a cultural threat from the outside…” (Williams 2000, p. 327) This series of events triggered the relocations of the sculpture, which demonstrated the public, now, redesigning their city.

Referenc es st

Miles, M 1997, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures, 1 edn, Routledge. st

Wallis, GJ 2004, Peril in the square: The Sculpture that Challenged a City, 1 edn, Indra, Melbourne.

Williams, L Dec 2000/ Jan 2001, 'Reshaping Melbourne (Part 1)', Art and Australia, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 326 – 328.

Artefact #3: Title: ‘Hot Spots- Summer 2010, January-March addition’ Analyt ical Description Written by ‘Right Angle Studios’ for the City of Melbourne, this design artefact reviews and suggests the ‘newest bars, shops, creative projects and summer events’ and other advice about how to enhance your experience within Melbourne’s central business district. This booklet has been carefully designed to reflect the values of a city that has become an ‘increasingly gentrified space of middle-class consumption’ (Fung, 2006). Fung presents the argument that Melbourne is a city, which is being marketed as an ‘epitome of urban sophistication’. Each individual business or event, which has been carefully selected for the artefact, focuses on a certain lifestyle that exists within the city.

The urban, youthful culture that is communicated through the choices support Zukin’s theory that culture is being used to fund the cities ‘symbolic economy’ (1995). It seems the Hot Spot guide is helping to design a perception of Melbourne as young, underground and sophisticated. The businesses included are guiding readers towards this lifestyle of inner city consumption, also suggested by Zukin as being a development strategy by cities as culture becomes an ‘economic base’ (1995). By covertly communicating that these activities, such as sipping cocktails at Campari House or attending a screening at the Melbourne Queer Film Festival, will give you a unique Melbourne experience. The reviews are also, essentially, advertisements encouraging consumers to fuel the economy by partaking in these cultural activities.

The booklet is designed with a sophisticated, simple, attractive layout, suggesting that the Melbourne City Council, who commissioned this project, intended these aspects to be communicated about the city. There are many codes imbedded within both the physical booklet and its contents. For example, the review on the bike rental service ‘Humble Vintage’ on pp.38-39 suggests that Melbournians are environmentally conscience and have the leisure and income to rent a bike and ride around Melbourne’s laneways. This business is thought to have been inspired by European cities, such as Amsterdam or Zurich, where bike riding and hire is extremely common. This supports Fung’s argument that there are “desires to discover a ‘European city’” (1995) in Melbourne. The “Urban Design Strategy Draft- Towards a Better ‘Public Melbourne’” provides a guideline for anyone who partakes in the re-

design of the city. Some of the ideas in the document are identifiable too in the Hot Spot guide implying that there is a direction the city is moving towards which is being reflected in this design draft. (Adams, 2006) The booklet divides the city into sections- Central, Northside, Cultural, Westside and Southside, including a map on each segments and a map reference of everything listed within the pages. The address and contact number of each place can be found in the back pages in the index. The sixth section of the guide- ‘explore’ suggests ways of getting around the streets, with information on features such as public transport and bike routes, as well as a calendar of events and exhibitions happening in the summer months. With a focus on transportation, the push towards ‘greener’ transportation is congruent with ideas in the ‘Urban Design Strategy’ as Melbourne aims to re-design itself as an environmentally conscience city.

There is a clear emphasis on having a strong design culture present in Melbourne, which is apparent in the ‘Hot Spot’ guide. The personality of the city can be manipulated through these sorts of public artefacts and the design of both its contents and layout help to communicate how Melbourne wishes to be perceived.

Referenc es Adams, R., 2006, ‘Draft Urban Design Strategy- Towards A Better ‘Public Melbourne’’, viewed th April 12 2010, <https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/PlansandPublications/strategies/Pages/Urbandesign .aspx> Fung, P. (2006) ‘The seduction of the laneways: making Melbourne a “world city”’, course readings th from COMM2411, RMIT University, Melbourne, viewed 6 April 2010, RMIT Learning Hub. Zukin, S. 1995, ‘The Culture of Cities’, Blackwell, Massachusetts.

Artefact #4: Title: Sofitel Hotel, Collins Street, Melbourne.

Analyt ical Description

This dynamic hotel belongs to the branch of Sofitel and is positioned in the city grid within the stylish ‘Paris end’ of Collins Street surrounded by sophisticated shopping and upper class restaurants. In contrast to the bleak exterior of the Sofitel, the interior has embraced suave furniture to accommodate varying activities in an attempt to provide an upper class atmosphere. Appearance is carefully constructed and refined to maintain this reputation of a classy and urban lifestyle complemented by magnificent views. It is a business like any other, using aspects of design and connections to art faculties as a tactic of luring in customers.

The design of the building and many others throughout Collins Street clearly appropriate European style architecture, embracing this lifestyle and incorporating it into Melbourne’s landscape. In the ‘Journal of urban history’ it discusses how Melbourne’s construction during development ‘borrowed’ these elements and are ‘filtered through British and sometimes American architecture before being replicated here’ (Davison, 2001, pg3). Initially Melbourne adhered to global trends, which produced the basis for the city. However, today residents collectively want to explore new styles and experiment with innovative ideas produced from Melbournians. In creating new cities and buildings it requires the redesign of ideas alongside the compilation of varying projects. Subsequently applying it to a fresh landscape, this can be observed in Sofitel’s efforts to mimic European design. (2001) In the broader picture, Sofitel can be seen as an element contributing to the framework of the city’s grid. Where a business set up within the grid can determine its success, what is surrounding it can be just as important. Being located in Collins Street is an additional benefit to the Sofitel. The ‘Brown-May extract’ discusses the layout

of Melbourne and how it’s planning influences society’s relationship with the space.

The ‘city grid’ is a device designed in response to what was fashionable as Melbourne was being developed. Although it was considered controversial to some, the grid was seen as ‘uniquely providing not just a container for various and necessary urban functions, but also an architectural form, dedicated to highly regarded aesthetic principles.’ (Brown-may, 1998, pg10) This idea of design can be applied to the Sofitel. The Sofitel may just seem like a building but encoded in this sign is a lifestyle, it has been constructed and designed to be not only a setting for meetings and socialisation, but also a reflection of the individual.

Since 1997 Sofitel Melbourne has become a part of The Global Arts Project, which is involved in managing cultural events, projects and exhibitions. These partnerships enable artists to not only create or exhibit their work, but also redesign elements of the Sofitel through installation art. This symbiotic relationship promotes a positive impression of the Sofitel as well as Melbourne; an image of culture and intelligence. By sponsoring events and organizations, it draws in visitors seeking accommodation and they too want to wear a label of endorsing in culture. Employing artists who have a thorough understanding of the visual image is an effective business tactic evident in Sofitel. This involves harnessing the ability of artists to manipulate the appearance of products in order to provoke their target customer. Businesses utilize the notion of designing and advertising a persona in order to stimulate people’s desires to live a certain way or be a certain person. Manipulating the appearance of the hotel will draw in visitors who want to engage in these ideals. The Sofitel is part of a framework of interconnected businesses and uses design as a method to become more noticeable in this competitive field.

Referenc es Brown-May, A (1998), ‘The Desire for a City: Street Space and Images’, Melbourne Street Life, Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing.

Davison Journal. G, 2001, ‘Journal of Urban History’, The European City in Australia, The Urban History Association, Melbourne, Sage Publications.

Global Arts Projects website, 15/05/10, <http://www.gap.net.au/what-we-do.aspx>

Artefact #5: Title: Melbourne’s Multicultural Delights.

Analyt ical Description This communication artefact, located along Swanston Street, is much involved with Melbourne’s design and culture. Melbourne has a vast variety of cuisines from different places all around the world and has been known as the capital of multicultural food. Melbourne owes its popularity within this aspect to the many different cultures now residing the city. Not only do these foreigners produce exotic new tastes for Melbournians, but they also create a new perspective of Melbourne based on the design and layout of the restaurants themselves.

Having a multicultural race in Melbourne has brought in benefits to the country, particularly to their food and design. Italian, Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Malay, French and Vietnamese restaurants are, now, vastly prominent within the Melbourne city. Currently, different varieties of cuisines are becoming more a part of Melbourne as time progresses, also contributing to the design aspects of the city due to the design associated with the individual cultures. There is a great sense of local or regional food culture in Melbourne, where one’s food culture (and design) has been brought out of one’s origin. Multiculturalism has been a great aspect of Melbourne and it’s growth. It will be continuously growing, providing Melbournians with the pleasure of great food, and creating a new sense of foreign culture’s design, which is now embedded within the city-scape. (Food, people and technology: an integrated approach to home economics 2000) The codes, which we interpret from within the sign, represented by the row of restaurants, is ‘culture’. This creates a perception of Melbourne being a “multicultural city” within individuals, who experience this part of Melbourne’s identity. The food, design and layout of each restaurant are all separate signs, which allow us to interpret the different codes beneath them, generating a unique experience of culture that individuals create for themselves.

“Civilization refers to the culture of cities.” (Community design and the culture of cities: the crossroad and the wall 1990, p.5) It is the mixture of people placed together in a meaningful environment to exchange goods, services and ideas.

Having different cultures in Melbourne partially gives Melbourne its name of being a

‘design city’ and a multicultural land. Without the mixture of design from different cultures, Melbourne would not be as popular as it is now with the multicultural races.

The multicultural food stores, with their traditional designs on the interior and exterior, give Melbournians an image of the foreign country without having to visit the place itself. For example, entering a Chinese restaurant will give Melbournians an experience of being in China. Through their design and layout, Melbournians can experience China’s lifestyle (culture) and design. Through their food and display of each dish, Melbournians can experience China on a more personal level. Design develops in all cultures and has been immeasurably developed in Melbourne.

(Community design and the culture of cities: the crossroad and the wall 1990) “Cities have typically been viewed as sites of cultural expression and sophistication” (Coffee Culture, Destination and Tourism 2010, p.41). Without multiculturalism, Melbourne would not have a mix of cultures, food, events, and races living in this city. Multiculturalism has created a new lifestyle for Melbourne and has redesigned Melbourne into a multicultural city.

Referenc es Jollife, L (ed) 2010, Coffee Culture, Destination and Tourism, Short Run Press Ltd., Great Britain.

Lozando, E E 1990, Community design and the culture of cities: the crossroad and the wall, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Major, G & Maes, G 2000, Food, people and technology: an integrated approach to home economics, Macmillan Education Australia Pty Ltd, South Yarra.