We could all learn alot from graffiti art. At least, I’m looking at it and I see many images that stir me up. Some of the images are crude or downright political. Others are beautiful and some don’t make sense at all. I guess that is true for most contemporary art. Some people can never get it or understand it.
I find it funny that they don’t even try some times but i’m an artist and I cannot expect them to think as I do. I have to go back and remind myself that I’m not like them and I cannot do what they do. I just find it interesting that some folks find it appalling when I can find so much to talk about.
Here is part of an essay, student Geroge Stowers wrote:
“Suppose that Leonardo, Monet, Picasso, or any of the recognized artisans of Western European culture were alive in the present day. Then, suppose that one of these famous artists decided to paint a masterpiece on the side of your house or on your front door or on a wall in your neighborhood. Would Picasso or Monet’s markings be graffiti or art or vandalism or graffiti art? The answer may vary across people, but I would claim that those markings are art in the form of graffiti. Their markings would qualify as vandalism only if they appeared on private or public property without permission. The same answer holds for the present day, genre of graffiti known as graffiti art.
“Graffiti art originated in the late 1960’s, and it has been developing ever since. However, it is not readily accepted as being art like those works that are found in a gallery or a museum. It is not strictly denied the status of genuine art because of a lack of form or other base aesthetic elements. Most of the opposition to graffiti art is due to its location and bold, unexpected, and unconventional presentation, but its presentation and often illegal location does not necessarily disqualify it as art. In this paper, I elucidate how some forms of graffiti can be accepted as art. This type of graffiti is known as graffiti art, subway art, or spraycan art. The arguments of vandalism and unconventional presentation as negating the ability of some graffiti to be art is usurped by an explanation of those properties apparent in some forms of graffiti that do qualify it, aesthetically, as art. To show this, I provide a historical context of graffiti, and then I provide persuasive evidence that graffiti art is art.
I like and agree with George’s thinking. If only we could explain it that easily to the folks that are having a hard time all art forms. But, you wanna know something? I don’t like tatoos very much on the body. I’m having a hard time putting anything but mascara on mine. I appreciate the art but just not on my skin. Art in a nutshell is so subjective and that is why we never have to worry about being in competition. Someone will like it.
Like the old saying goes, ” To Each Is Own”.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Browse Timeline
Comments ( 2 )
Street art still has its stigma, especially with the saturation of simple taggers spraying their name quickly across other people’s work, but the days of graffiti only as vandalism are long gone. Now some of the most prominent contemporary artists got their start from throwing up bombs of spray paint, stencil graphics or wheat pasting posters on walls. For a deeper look at where street art has come and where its going, check out WoosterCollective.com
Rocket added these pithy words on
Dec 03 08 at
3:29 pm
Great stuff! Thanks for sharing, Rocket! I’m inspired!
Michele added these pithy words on
Dec 10 08 at
11:26 pm
