september saw some interesting developments in the graffiti world, with one person being sentenced and another being protected.

daniel tyndale, aka dot com, received a year’s suspended prison sentence and was ordered to do 300 hours unpaid work for causing damages estimated in excess of £1m around the bristol area. his unscrupulous spraying of protected buildings and personal property has made people furious, but not as much as the court’s decision not to jail the 21 year old. [see here]

on the other hand, there is a general air of excitement surrounding the arrival of a new banksy opposite the children’s hospital in the city centre. staff have already emailed banksy to see if they can auction off the artwork. not an easy task, as it’s fixed to a wall, but that hasn’t stopped art thieves in the past [see here].

his mild mild west mural in stokes croft could be preserved in a redevelopment of the adjacent building [see here]. this demonstrates a healthy support behind banksy, a graffiti artist who appears to be able to put up work wherever he likes in town and for it to be kept rather than buffed. on a similar tip, tower hamlets council recently sent out a questionnaire asking residents which pieces of graffiti along brick lane they wanted preserved [see here]. this appears to be a trend towards a distinction between vandalism and art; something obvious to a lot of people, but less so with councils in general and certain graffiti artists. owners of a house with a recently vandalised piece by banksy and kato on cato street, are seeking to have it restored or replaced. [see here]

and here lies the crux regarding what to do about these acts of vandalism? what people seem to want is not the handing out of prison sentences as much as reparation for their acts, so what better justice for dot com but to be charged with removing his tag from the city. this way, the perpetrators would undergo a lesson in urban restoration and the balance will be restored. good karma

all is not over for dot com as, no sooner did he leave the court after sentencing, than he was taken to an unnamed police station and questioned in relation to further offences.