All this said, though, there is something weird and contradictory about putting perspex over a piece of graffiti. The Age says:
The Melbourne Pavillion's original apearence, image taken from The Age Travel section article dated 29.09.08
The laneways were overridden by Victorian Premier John Brumby. Brumby is quoted in online articles as wanting to promote the laneways' "European sense of cleanliness" rather than their graffiti. I guess what this all raises is who do we allow to decide what characterises a city, what is art, and furthermore which art deserves protection and which does not. It also highlights the differences of opinion between various levels of bureaucracy, which in turn indicates the unlikeliness that there will ever be a definite solution.
I guess the Melbourne-graffiti-at-Disneyworld fiasco coupled with the lost-Banksy fiasco makes me wonder whether someone like Brumby even cares that Melbourne has "lost its treasured Banksy," and furthermore why it is that we rush to protect and/or mourn this foreign street artist, but barely hesitate to think about local artists, who have an active and lasting relationship with Melbourne.
(Like Paisley, the artist responsible for this cat, whose work can be found throughout the CBD and inner Northern suburbs.)
(Ok, rant over. Time for bed. I hope this isn't toooo rambling and stream-of-consciousness, I guess it is just an issue that really does get to me, and I couldn't let the Age article go without saying at least something. )