In ‘Street Art: The Transfiguration of the Commonplaces’ Riggle presents his theory of the conditions in which an artwork can be considered ‘street art’. One of the most important of his points being "An artwork is street art if, and only if, its material use of the street is internal to its meaning” (246). Riggle also presents a series of conditions for art to be considered street art. These are conditions are:
1. The art is open to being destroyed, stolen, defaced etc.
2. The artist relinquishes any claim over the works integrity
3. The meaning of the art is comprised when moved from street
4. The work is anonymous or pseudonyms and normally act of vandalism
5. The work is deeply antithetical to the art world
This essay will consist
…show more content…
Not only is there commissioned street art, legal street walls in London, Auckland etc. but the origin and everyday meaning of vandalize is “to destroy culture and/or something beautiful” (“vandalize”). If this is the definition Riggle is using, which he does not specify, but should use as otherwise the word would become meaningless, then would we really call street art vandalism? Most would say it in fact does the opposite and adds to the culture and beauty of the streets but again this is all personal interpretation. He counter acts this by differentiating between “mere graffiti” and “art graffiti”, but if his conditions are to hold extra weight this should be further clarified in the fourth point.
It seems that Riggle’s theory of street art is particularly strong however there are minor flaws which seem to result from overlooking specific details. If Riggle wanted to convince his audience even further on how these conditions can define “all street art and exclude everything that isn’t” then he would need to specify further what he means by ephemerality, vandalism, anti-thetical and meaning. Otherwise the counter-examples provided such as the Mona Lisa, Swoon and Banksy could be considered exceptions to the conditions he has
The difference in the approach between Margaret Kilgallen and Julian Schnabel can clearly be seen on the canvas. Ms. Kilgallen preferred to paint images that were flat yet striking; she favored street art over the main stream types of fine art. Street art is considered graffiti by a large number of people, since it is frequently placed without the property owner’s knowledge.
“This world is but a canvas to our imagination” (Thoreau). The world is quite literally a canvas for graffiti artists, and these two opinion editorials cover the desire for this medium of art to be appreciated and showcased. Eric Felisbret wrote “Legal Venues Celebrate Graffiti as an Art Form” which was published on July 16, 2014 in the New York Times. Felisbret’s article was about creating more legal venues to showcase graffiti. Kathy Grayson wrote “L.A. Graffiti Exhibition, ‘Art in the Streets,’ belongs in N.Y.C.,” which was published on June 26, 2011 in the New York Daily News. Grayson wrote her article to persuade readers that “Art in the Streets” belongs in New York. The articles were simultaneously the same and very different in their content. Even though the specific messages were diverse the purpose was to persuade the discourse community, who value law, education, and their community, into having graffiti displayed as art. These two
Street art is more than just painting something beautiful or cool on a public wall. It’s about the people who decide what should be shown in public space, the messages that are advertised, and how the messages affect us all. (Croteau, David. Ch.4Pg113). Banksy has made himself known for doing politically inspired pieces of artwork for example, by critiquing entities like capitalism, war, and hypocrisy. Political satire is often used to analyze one’s society and policies. It “interrupts the process of normalization”( Hebdige, Dick. Pg 18) . It is simultaneously humorous and smart while exposing something which the satirist perceives as wrong or ridiculous. Banksy’s is known for using satire in his work. “Exit Through the Giftshop is, in itself, satirical commentary on various aspects of the art world, from the commercialization of contemporary art to the endless subjective debate on what constitutes an
"Graffiti-Art Exhibit Is Artless to Police Commissioner Bratton" by Pia Catton covers the opinion of a police commissioner about graffiti art being portrayed as vandalism. Police commissioner Bratton views graffiti as a destructive force that has defaced the streets and subway cars of many neighborhoods and considered to be vandalism. Needless to say that Bratton doesn't even think that it's appropriate for kids to see, because according to him it's an atrocious depiction of what art is supposed to be. On the other hand for graffiti, Susan Henshaw Jones only intended for graffiti to be looked as a form of art "not to glorify vandalism". From the different standpoints of the article, graffiti can be a beautiful piece of artwork or inappropriate vandalism. The form that graffiti takes when on the streets doesn’t make it art because it was placed without permission.
Due to this definition, most people automatically combine graffiti with illegal activity. Therefore, it is considered an illicit or illegal activity simply it is done in a public space. Graffiti it is misunderstood and misrepresented by the media; they twist it into vandalism and call it a gateway into other crimes. How can art be a gateway into stealing and murdering? Society just wants to group us all together into categories kind of like good vs evil. The best art says something about the social and political conditions surrounding the area of the picture. Furthermore the graffiti artist picks special locations to provide an insight into the area. Now some graffiti is words on the side of trains that are to some awful and disrespectful to look at. Nevertheless, be it your street name or an image testifying what’s going on with the world, much like the inequality between men and women, it is still self-expression. A self-expression that the elders of our generation claim to want youth to have but then condemn the same youth if it states anything close to the truth. Graffiti is expensive to take off and cleanup, which is why it is an outlawed activity. Los Angeles County had to spend 28 million dollars on graffiti removal. You know what is expensive, war is expensive, medication is expensive, and cost of living is expensive.
To begin with, graffiti is exhibited in many museums and galleries along with art. London is home to many galleries that showcase graffiti, such as the Lawrence Alkin Gallery. If graffiti is displayed in galleries along with art, this should qualify it as such. Secondly, art has changed and is still changing throughout many phases, from the era of cave painting to the era of postmodernism and deconstructivism. Graffiti has also gone through many movements and changes in style, from the first simple scribble to the large murals. Its display in galleries and its development into more complex forms suggest that it is a form of art.
"Banksy Paradox: 7 Sides of the Most Infamous Street Artist | Urbanist." WebUrbanist RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2014.
At the end of the day, people should stop underestimating graffiti art. Banksy, in his book, “Banging Your Head Against A Brick Wall,” said “Graffiti is one of the few tools you have if you have almost nothing. And even if you don't come up with a picture to cure world poverty you can make someone smile while they're having a piss.” Graffiti work should be admired by everyone else because it holds so many significance whether it's only a phrase or a sketch. People shouldn't just absentmindedly assume it as the worst thing ever or as an awful thing. I agree that it can be vandalism to the public but graffiti can also be made in many other places legally so why think of it in the dark side? People should take care on how they are judging the striking art behind graffiti and criticizing it without really evaluating all the great meaning behind it.
Although many people believe that Graffiti is vandalism, it is infact art because many museums display graffiti, people are interested in it, and it displays beauty and emotional power. Many people have learned to appreciate graffiti as an art form and have opened their eyes to the beauty and emotional power it holds. From the video on CBS News, “Is Graffiti Art or Vandalism,” Laura Fanning (museum visitor) explains at 1:42 “… now I see it as more of a commentary and a statement of ‘I’m leaving my mark’…” This quote exhibits a museum visitor whose perception of graffiti changed when she went to a museum that displayed Graffiti. The same message is delivered in the article, “Graffiti Art at the Museum of the City of New York: Writing Was on the Wall, and Some Still Remains” by Ken Johnson. Page one of the article reads, “In 1989, Mr. Wong founded his Museum of American Graffiti on the top floor of a townhouse in the East Village, but real estate complications ended that venture after only six months. In 1994, suffering from AIDS, Mr. Wong donated his collection to the Museum of the City of New York and returned to his hometown, San Francisco, where he died in 1999.” The quote from this article informs the reader that museums will accept people’s collections of graffiti to use in their museum. Museums are usually interested in art and when a museum accepts someone’s personal collection that they have donated it must mean that it is truly art. Not only are museums interested in graffiti as an art form, but many people have come to accept graffiti as an art and take interest in it too.
Is street art a true art form? Does it provoke the same emotional impact that museum art has? There are many people who disregard street art as a form of vandalism and something that should be subject to punishment. However, after watching the film Exit Through the Gift Shop, I began to question why street art is not considered a true form of art by a large portion of the art community. Street artists convey messages in their work that cause us to think critically so that we can truly understand the meaning, just as fine art in museums do. The temporariness of street art does not necessarily take away from the emotional impact that is intended by the artist. What makes art, art, is not what it looks like, but how the viewer perceives it. I believe that you cannot put a boundary on art, no matter if it is in a museum or on a street corner, as long as the creativity and authenticity is there, and the viewer is challenged to think.
I am quite interested in the topic of street photography; one of the biggest reasons is because in most cases street photography is very real. Street photography is all candid images, they are not posed, they are not set up; but they are real, they are in the moment and most of the time the artists are so stealthy about the way that they capture the photographs that no one really ever knows that they are even taking the photographs. There are a few photographers that are very important to street photography that I would like to talk about; Robert Frank, Lee Friedlander, Diane Arbus and Winogrand. These are photographers really created what people might consider to be the face of street photography, you can think of street photography without thinking of one of their works. Personally, I am very fascinated with street photography. I believe it to be very beautiful. In my opinion street photography seems to be a lot similar to photojournalism, in the way that both of the photography styles are extremely, I do not know if I would use the word ‘candid’, I am not sure if that would be exactly the right way of putting it, however maybe the right word would be more like, well a phrase really, both of the photography styles of both photojournalism and street photography are really quite in the moment, they are not set up, instead of making the shot perfect, finding the camera angles and waiting for just the right moment to make that image wonderful and amazing.
Street art is understood to be a subculture of graffiti, but cannot be simply defined as one form (Hughs). “Street art, originally coined by Allan Schwartzman in 1985 (Lewisohn, 2008),
Mention the word graffiti and what typically comes to mind is something unpleasant and distasteful like indecent language scribbled on a wall of a store or crude pictures. Most graffiti is characterized as vandalism on property that does not belong to the culprit. Graffiti also displays negative graphics that promote some type of vulgar message such as violence, sex, drugs, gangs, and racism. On the other hand, when the terms “street” and “art” come together, a blast of colorful creations upon blank slates on the street comes to mind. Although street art is technically considered graffiti, it is a type of graffiti with positive qualities, but certain figures in society find street art to be, in some way, disruptive. If used properly, street art can be appreciated artistically and socially. Despite the negative stigma attached to graffiti, street art has emerged as a progressive valuable art form whose vast history, surge in popularity, and urge for social change warrant its classification as a fine art.
Graffiti started in the 1920s when gangs would tag train cars and walls to mark territory mainly in New York City. Graffiti took a different turn in the 1970s when young adults decided to use street art as an outlet to express their political and social outrage. This movement had soon gained the attention of the “adult” world. Graffiti was known as “creation through destruction” and to this day is still considered illegal in most parts of the world. In modern street art the mediums used have evolved past spray paint and now artists are using different methods with spray paint to progress their works past crude tags. Common mediums used are stencils, prints, and murals. Graffiti is often considered to be art because of new artists, such as
Art Education is not always valued in school settings. Although some may see it as an unnecessary use of school funding, there are many who believe it is beneficial to students in more ways than one. There are many different studies that have been conducted to test the effects that art education has on school-aged children. Some studies have proven that art education can help students to improve in other academic areas. In a journal article from Ohio State University’s “Theory in Practice,” Karen A Hamblen states, “There are linkages between art learning and learning in other subjects areas and that art study can promote creative behaviors, critical thinking skills, and academic achievement.” It has also been found that the arts can teach children better self-regulatory strategies, and even foster more confidence and self-efficacy in school which relates to confidence in academics. Overall, art education in schools has been very beneficial and has proven to ignite creativity, confidence, critical thinking skills, and academic achievement in students.