After reading some posts about graffiti art as an art form or as defacement I started doing research on graffiti trends. By now after people such as Banksy, Shepard Fairy, and Miss Van had made graffiti (or in a larger term "street art") fashionable, we have come to a point were people simply see it as a trend. But, where has this trend of street art taken us and in what innovative ways does it continue to show up in a way that is still evolving with society? I searched and found the above video.
Many messages of street art have to do with how we as a society are desensitized towards issues such as war due to mainstream media or consumerism due to the bombarding advertisements that we see everyday, just to name a couple. The video above shows British artist Paul Curits. Curtis produces art that falls into a style of street-art called "reverse graffiti". His tools-- a power washer and copious amounts of detergent. His work sheds light on ideas of pollution and he hopes it will inspire people to think twice about the environment. My post is not really about Paul Curtis but more about artist intent. I must say though that I really do appreciate his method and his message.
Although yes his art is not necessarily putting substances onto a surface, he is still defacing public property. So I'm sure people can still make the argument that what he is doing is okay. Yet others will think that no matter what, it is defacement and it is wrong. After reading several posts from others on the topic of graffiti as an art form then having responses regarding the legality of defacement of public property, It made me wonder about this clip. I had said in response to one of the graffiti posts that intent is important when considering street-art because at one point ones intent to do good is overlooked because it is defacement. Many street-artists aren't trying to do anything but express themselves or issues that society needs to observe, in an area where the greater public can see these issues in their art.
I guess my final question is eco-art more acceptable? If the method of street-art has the added bonus of cleaning dirt walls or being more eco friendly is it okay? I understand that the laws are different in other countries and the view of street-art is sometimes more acceptable in some countries and less in others but it still is an interesting topic concerning the importance of artist intent in relation to the acceptance of the methods of presenting the art. I think very heavily on artists intent because I think that the visual aspects of a piece of art are just as important as the message and intent of the piece.
That is definitely a tough question. It's always hard to decided if the art is worth the 'destruction' or if it's something that people just shouldn't do because other forms of defacement are not tolerated, so why should graffiti as well as the idea that there are so many other mediums to make art in like paper, canvas, web, sculpture, etc. Being part of the art community, I understand why they do what they do, but I couldn't say if it is worth it or not. It still is destroying the public, but it has meaning... I am ultimately undecided on the subject.
ReplyDeleteIt's surprising to me that cleaning part of a building can be considered defacement. It's at least partial charity.
ReplyDeleteThat is amazing! I love that you posted this video. I just recently had a discussion with a friend about street art and the issue of defacement versus creating something beautiful. I think sending the message that the world is dirty through street art is a great way to reach out to people that might not normally notice things like that. I want him to come to Chicago and do that!
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point, Shanna. There are legal ways to go about it. Mural painting is one way, so graffiti could be just large scale art!
ReplyDeleteI do agree, I believe that Paul Curtis' graffiti art in terms of content is really dynamic, but the fact that we do live in a desensitized society makes it harder to try to motivate people to do good in the community such as improving the environment.
ReplyDeleteI love this concept of cleaning as graffiti! A very clever way of going about it. And I think to many people, yes, this would be more acceptable than spray painting because of the impermanence factor.
ReplyDeleteI think his designs are beautiful and frankly it would be an interesting experiment to see - what happens after he 'cleans' a pattern into somewhere? Does it then get fully washed? It's sort of like the kids writing "wash me" on really dirty car windows.
ReplyDeleteGoing along the lines of Shanna's comment, I like the idea of there being designated areas where graffiti artists can do their work (I'm now imagining a furious battle of one-upmanship as graffiti artists compete for attention on the same space). On the other hand, is part of the essence of graffiti the fact that it's legally questionable? Does it mean something completely different if it's got approval from The Man?
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting that someone does "reverse graffiti" I have never heard of that. Although most graffiti is done by gangs, I feel that this artists intent is to stray away from that and turn graffiti into something positive and to dis-connect it from gangs. He also relates it to the environment which is cool.
ReplyDeleteOne of my Art History Professors from my Community College showed us this artist. We also discussed whether this was considered "graffiti" in the classic sense of defacing property. In the end, we all concluded that this "reverse graffiti" showed us how street art can be used for positive impacts rather than being looked at as negative by everyone else.
ReplyDeletei have always thought graffiti to be a form of art more than vandalism. even if it is just a name on a wall, the style in which it is done requires an extreme amount of skill. How about the materials? the steady hand it takes to wield a can of spray paint? especially in the dark!
ReplyDeletewhat a great idea! (sidenote: power washers are awesome) But, I feel torn with this subject of defacement of public property vs artists expression. I do very much agree that it depends on the intent of the artist, however that is not an universal rule that can be applied, since there are many who would have different opinions. I also think, as said in a previous post, that street art becomes apart of the structures or community, which is very important.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with graffiti but I still cant help but love the creativeness and risk these artist take by making it.
ReplyDeleteIs eco-art acceptable? I think in society, it is just as much as traditional graffiti. But then again I do appreciate both as art forms and creative expression.
ReplyDelete