Here's an excerpt from this morning's Lewiston Sun Journal newspaper regarding graffiti art and the designation of a "legal" graffiti wall in our city. This has become a point of debate and contention in our community.
LEWISTON - An anti-graffiti plan supported by Mayor Larry Gilbert was in trouble Thursday after one of the founding taggers was arrested Wednesday night and owners of the city's graffiti wall were considering evicting the painters permanently.
To read the whole story go here and weigh in on this blog with your thoughts on the issue. Is graffiti art a valid art form or mere vandalism? Let's see if we can generate some meaningful dialogue!
(photo is of Brian Serfes working on the graffiti wall in Lewiston - credit: Jose Leiva/Sun Journal)
29 comments:
Jean-Michel Basquiat.
"I don't think about art when I'm working. I try to think about life."
"Believe it or not, I can actually draw."
"I don't listen to what art critics say. I don't know anybody who needs a critic to find out what art is."
My biggest beef with contemporary local graffiti artists is that the vast majority of them write/paint in a rote aping of the "wild style" that was popular in the 80s (for a fun, low-budget and dated look at this scene check out the movie "Wild Style"). That is to say - it all looks the same, it all looks like the stereotypical "graffiti" that was long ago co-opted for advertising "urban" toys and snacks foods to suburban kids.
Isla quotes Basquiat, which is great -- in the days of the East Village scene artists like Basquiat, Keith Haring, and Kenny Scharf all worked in the same circles and showed at the same venues, but had vastly different styles, both on the street and in the gallery. Where did that go? why 25 years later has it seemed to have de-evolved? I guess that is my take...I don't like the contemporary graffiti I see in Maine because it is predictable and boring.
PS - Thanks for sending me a link to your blog, Nathaniel - this is a great idea!
i thank Art is art, and when the person is truly needing and wanting to express themselves, in a way to be seen and heard in any form , and especially if its brought to an avenue that has been made legal and supportive to them, (rather than not, and determined as vandalism) then even more so they are someone with a need to share. as the true vandalist.. would just go find another wall or property to vandalize. This is a subject, you can easily see many sides too, but its like the skateboarding now, and the things we never considered sports, but have now built places for these kids to go..and im amazed at what they can do, everybody, just needs a direction, a course, if you may, a place to go... not a "wall".. another "wall" to shut them out on what they need to say and show. no matter how much we oursleves, love or hate it.
I think jeff really hit the nail on the head with this one. I think the biggest problem w/graffiti as a genre is the glaring lack of any kind of personal vision. The best of what I see seems to be aping what has been done a million times- the worst, in my opinion, is a stylized signature- no matter how well executed. The desire to see one's name all over town IS pretty universal, however, this is getting name recognition for essentially nothing.
Graffiti is illustration- that is, an artist illustrating an idea as quickly as possible with little regard for process. Graffiti, by its very nature, must be executed as quickly as possible. Its the old illustration vs. fine art debate all over again...
However, the important thing about being an illustrator is having a unique and interesting style- which is SERIOUSLY lacking in the vast majority of graffiti artists.
Now- onto the vandalism side of things (I've been told I'm long winded in these things...)
There is no excuse for messing up something that doesn't belong to you for the sake of vanity. Anyone who has had their property vandalized knows how enraging that can be. The most glaring example of graffiti related vandalism that has happened to me was that the hood of my car was tagged (white car+green tag= pug fugly) I think since the vast majority of graffiti artists are quite young, they do not REALLY comprehend the existence of other people.
...but hey- at least they're into art.
I am reminded of A Comic I read where one guy (Mr.+) exclaims, "Wow. Look at the great art work someone did on your wall!"
The other guy (Mr.-) says "#@%*! punks! What right do they have to deface our City!"
Confused, Mr.+ asks "I don't get it. What is the difference between Art and Vandalism?"
Mr.- replies, "Permission!"
I would pretty much agree with Mr.- except Art is Art and what Basquiate was doing with out permission was still Art, he and his Art wasn't recognized until it was put into a Gallery, and analyzed by the critiques.
We had a similar incident at The Art Guru (104 Main St Gorham, ME 839-6138) where someone tagged the building, dumpster and my school bus out back. I'm trying to spearhead a movement to make the back wall a Legal Graffiti wall and turn this negative (crappy unimaginative, monochromatic name tags), into a plus (A creative outlet for kids who need to express themselves-Directed by SUBONE a non profit organization headed up by Andy Coffin). Watch this video to see what they did up in Blue Hill. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5277388320021820417
I agree with Jeff. But I think it's also important to ask why, if I could paint exactly in the style of Sargent for instance (who wouldn't want to be able to?), nobody would question whether my paintings were art. Why are some artistic techniques more "acceptable" as just that--technique-- and skill, whereas others are seen as gimmicks/stolen concepts? Does this have anything to do with the amount of time its been since the different ideas were conceived? Maybe not. And can we think about this in relation to art's role as a commodity/trade/craft versus it's role as a form of expression?
Right on, Isla... and for every graffiti artist aping SPONE or Barry McGee there a thousand Sargeanteers.
Harold Bloom writes about how, as artists, we often seek to "correct" our influences - stealing some things wholesale but then consciously rejecting and changing other elements. It is this re-mixing (predominately seen today in music sampling) that constitutes originality for the postmodernist.
Variety of already existing cultural elements + new/ironic combinations + new context = original art.
Or something like that. Whether you agree with that is, of course, another story.
Whether one is repeating graffiti or one is repeating bowls of fruit and seascapes, both have been done before. Unless one can find a way to make ether form meaningful in a contemporary setting, then I guess I would agree and say they are both equally boring, talent and technique aside (I know Nathaniel will rip me for that one...)
Good points all... HOWEVER- The difference between graffiti style and the style of Sargent is that Sargent's work is very much based on how the human eye perceives things and less about a contrived "style".
At the risk of missing the point somehow or not recognizing that it's likely the principle of it all, I'd suggest that graffiti artists consider calling themselves "muralists" to avoid the vandal associations. Also, if spay paint is your medium, learn... REALLY learn to use an airbrush so your marks are of the utmost quality and the paintings have the greatest integrity possible.
very good point jody~ thats a great idea.. as the better the tool, and a name that doesnt degrade, may take away the arguments over what art is to those who feel good in expressing this way. sometimes, i think too much emphasis is placed on how "we" percieve what art should look like, and how 'we " think it should be expressed, and once again who are we to define it for others? Dont we all have our own avenues, and have not found our own way, and style, whatever it is? to me, the only question here , is legality and integrity.
Let's go back to Sargeant. One could say that he aped his instructor, Carolus-Duran, and, in many ways, they wouldn't be that far off base- Sargeant did take a lot from his teacher. I would make the assertion, however, that Sargeant (along with Carolus-Duran and every likeminded artist that has preceded or followed them) aped Nature. Sure, Sargeant picked up some techniques and tricks of the trade from his teachers, but it was through his personality and experience that Nature was filtered through onto his canvases (and drawings, too- let's not forget how awesome they are). One could make the argument that his personality/filter is no more a product of himself than the Universe, but either way, his stuff is borne of direct experience and response to the most varied and infinite thing we know- the world around us.
In Sargeant's hands, paint assumes a duel reality. It can be, for example, both a swatch of grey and the left side of a woman's face. He let's the paint be paint- and something else, too.
I see little graffiti that is in response to our current environment, be it natural, political, or social. It is, as has been stated, a carbon copy of stuff that has already received the stamp of approval (years ago, as Jeff stated)from people in real urban settings. Far from being a proclamation of individuality, it smacks to me of the middle-class pledging allegiance to a safe and predictable existence free from challenge or risk.
I think that graffiti is considered art as long as it is used properly and in the right area. Art has no limits so evidently graffiti is a form of art.
Mr. Dalquist says Hi !
Did I say "spay paint"? I meant SPRAY paint. Typing fast never works well.
To me, Grafitti is deffinetly a form of art. It has its limitations, though. When people vandalize and do Grafitti where they shouldn't, and write bad things, like racial slurs or what not, then that's just being dis-respectful. But when you actually look at Grafitti, when people take time and do it seriously, it's very unique. Therefore, I believe that Grafitti is a form of art.
Mr. Dahlquist said hi
-Joslyn
I was in St. Petersburg, Russia this past June, visiting my friend, Danya, who is really involved in breakdancing and graffiti. He took us to the roof of a vacant apartment building where he and his friends have been painting for the past year or so. Their murals express their frustration with the government and its faltering democracy, the tensions of living in a major city, and simply their individual personalities. It's of huge importance to them, because in Russia, it's incredibly difficult for young people, in particular, to feel as if they have a voice or any significance to the community. The police force is generally corrupt and violent, so most people are afraid to paint on the streets or in public places. But what Danya and his frends do is intelligent, unique, and expressive of their lives and their perspective of the world. Graffiti has the potential to be powerful, if only it can be used to actually say something.
I like grafitti because its a great art form.
Mike Ash
I think graffiti art is a great form of spontaneous expression!
Go me. Alie.
Interesting observation, Leah. Would it then depend upon the situation in which people live to define whether graffiti becomes a means for making statements? Does our comfortable and relatively affluent culture create a situation where most graffiti becomes self-indulgent or narcissistic?
I think that people have their different ways of exspressing their art tallents. And this person just so happens to love and is really good at Girfiti.
For a whole lot more commentary on this subject go to the provided Sun Journal link to read responses on their website-blog. There's been a LOT of interest in this subject from varying perspectives.
I believe that grafitti should be classified as an art. I think that it is a creative way to express your self without the use of paints, canvas, clay, etc. I personally love graffiti even though many people think that it is dirty and trashy but I think that it has its own beauty and creativness!
Some people say graffiti isn’t art, it’s just vandalism. I agree that graffiti is vandalism because graffiti artists violate other people’s property rights. Plus some people might be offended by graffiti. I still think graffiti is art because it involves color, form, design and creativity. I don’t do graffiti but I think graffiti walls are a good idea. A graffiti wall would allow artists to express themselves without breaking the law, and allow people to view or avoid graffiti as they wish.
I think graffiti is a great way to express art. However, graffiti should be done on your own property or with the permission of the owner.
Christine B
ELHS
i belive they should set aside more room for kids 2 express themselves on the walls
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
I'm the kind of guy who enjoys to taste new things. Currently I'm fabricating my private solar panels. I'm making it all alone without the assistance of my staff. I'm utilizing the net as the only path to acheive this. I saw a truly amazing website that explains how to contruct solar panels and wind generators. The website explains all the steps involved in solar panel construction.
I'm not exactly sure about how correct the info given there iz. If some people over here who have xp with these works can have a peak and give your feedback in the page it will be awesome and I'd highly treasure it, because I extremely love solar panel construction.
Thanks for reading this. You people are great.
Interesting article, added his blog to Favorites
In my opinion, graffiti is illegal if people do it over a privately owned wall or place. But as long as they have permission, I believe it helps to beautify some places that look pale and boring. Some people see graffiti as vandalism, but in truth, it is a complex and unique work of art.
Here you can sell and buy both new and used products.
Free classified sites are perfect for selling just about anything at all.
Post a Comment