These articles are particularly well timed, since someone tagged the wall of Studio 1021 yesterday. While we enjoyed their choice of a playful purple instead of the bland neutrals they usually use on our walls, it was still a nuisance. Even though we "erased" the work, it reminds me of discussions I've had in modern art classes, and I'd like to hear what you all think.
Is graffiti art?
Ultimately, this harkens back to the essential question of the definition of art. Even though the graffiti on our studio was upsetting to us, I'm not completely willing to discount all graffiti as a mere nuisance. I remember traveling in Germany and Switzerland and being absolutely blown away (in a good way) by graffiti. It exists on walls (there is/was one rather memorable wall with graffiti in Berlin), on trains . . . and I have to say, some of it was truly beautiful (in my opinion, of course). So, I follow the school of thought that graffiti can be art. However, I'm not compelled to say that, therefore, ALL graffiti is art. I can say that I appreciate the questions it raises about the definition of art, and I think it is always a fascinating discussion.
Think about performance, installation, and public art that has been controversial. What are some of the characteristics of the work that compel the viewer to evaluate or disregard it? In the 60's Ed Ruscha joined the canon of modern art with his "word paintings." He often painted words and sayings on his canvases; how different is this from painting on walls or other objects with a spray can? I'm feeling like stirring things up today. What do you think?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/08/positive-graffiti-the-mos_n_674761.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2010/08/17/129251257/misrach
Posts
