Put your cameras and spray cans away. Urban photography and street art has now gone head to head with British national security.
Wall art and urban photography has always drawn its fair share of controversy, but during the last decade in the UK artists have increasingly been targeted by anti-terrorist law.
 |
A 2007 poll conducted in the UK revered infamous graffiti artist Banksy as one of the 10 Greatest living Britons, alongside the Queen. Unfortunately, government officials and local councils do not hold him or other graffiti artists in such high esteem. The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 introduced powers for local councils to punish offenders and to help them clear up illegal graffiti, which has evolved to become more political, controversial, and opinionated than ever before. Let us not also forget the Criminal Damage Act of 1971 (section 6 specifically) or the 2005 Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act, both of which consider graffiti to be a criminal act that could constitute a penalty of up to £5,000. Whether the graffiti is a schoolboy tag, or an iconic print, the sanctions remain the same. |
In an attempt to appease graffiti artists, some local councils have designated free walls - city wall space which can be used for graffiti and other artistic purposes. However, in some cases this gesture only serves to inflame the artists' political aggression. Banksy agrees: "Asking for permission (to graffiti) is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head."
It is not only graffiti artists who are embroiled in a political battle. With the rising paranoia over security and terrorism, police have also increasingly challenged photographers over their capture of potentially security-sensitive subjects. For example power stations, bridges and ports.
Such landmarks are incessantly filmed by means of an armada of CCTV cameras, the beautiful irony of which is naturally lost on officials.
Some of the greatest photos ever taken fall under the 'urban photography' category, yet the Terrorism Act (2000) has enabled police to question urban photographers over the purpose of their innocuous photos.
The Act enables police to seize “articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism” or even detain people they believe to be a threat, and to have their DNA recorded whether or not they are charged with any crime.
Although 2010 seemed to show the end of such an invasion of human liberty when the stop-and-search clause Section 44 was ruled illegal, the fight against photography could recommence as the UK Home Secretary made a remedial order to revise the law earlier this year.
So where do we draw the line between personal freedom and public safety? The Terrorism Act is wide open to interpretation and manipulation, however unless you find yourself caught red handed snapping shots of nuclear bunkers or top secret documents it is unlikely that you have broken the law.