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
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.
The “vandalism” is displayed in museums all around the world, many people have recognized graffiti and become more interested, and lastly, many people appreciate it for the beauty and emotions tied into the artwork.
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.
Within the last few years, graffiti has been deemed an acceptable and tasteful genre of art. Long gone are the days where the spray can belonged exclusively to the local delinquent. From the past to present, there has been a shift in how street art is recognized by the general public and the government. Laws and policies are being put into place that both defend and threaten the promulgation of this creative medium. By both protecting and prohibiting, the government displays an inconsistent and confusing relationship with street art. When art is so subjective, it can become challenging to delineate the fine line between vandalism and creativity. This essay will discuss the changing public perception of graffiti, the trademark and copyright battles between graffiti artists and property owners, the categorization of street art as an artform, and the beneficial aspects of commissioned street murals.
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.
Art is the expression or application of our thoughts, desires, emotions and feelings. Art helps us spread and share our thoughts with others. There are many different types of art and graffiti is one of them. Each person living in this world has their own definition of art. Some define graffiti as illegal because they believe that it abuses public property. Others believe that Graffiti should be legalized because they see it as not just another form of art but also as a useful form of political expression, a way to beautify scenery and as a potential source of income.
When you think of graffiti do you think of gang tags and inappropriate invasion of space? Without question, graffiti is found most frequently in the underprivileged sections of town more so than the upper middle class neighborhoods. Although none are immune if the opportunity presents itself – say at 3 a.m. to a passerby who just happens to be in possession of a spray can or two of paint.
It is a ridiculous belief that just because graffiti is done somewhere without consent, it throws out the notion that it is still art. Sure, the piece of work was done illegally but why can’t the work still be appreciated and enjoyed. Art is art wherever it is found. The location of the piece does not change that. In fact, graffiti can kill two birds with one stone. First, at the foundation it is a form of art. Second, on top of that foundation a message can be erected and directed. But as the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Graffiti is a form of art that people use to express themselves and to convey various messages to people in a particular community. In the movie "Graffiti Verite':. One of the graffiti artist explained that his purpose in doing graffiti is that it allows him to "express his anger' on the wall. Another kid by the name of "Jipsie" said that graffiti is a "form of growth". There were several different explanations that artists shared as well as several different reasons why they like graffiti. The common theme among the graffiti artist and taggers was that graffiti is simply a form of self-expression (Bryan). At the end of the film one tagger made a comment and said, "graffiti is not vandalism, but it is a beautiful crime". This comment did not make sense to me. Committing a crime, a hideous act, is not a beautiful thing to do by any means. Graffiti does not mean people can go around and draw and spray paint on other peoples property. Regardless of what types of graffiti are being expressed by the tagger, this type of self expression is considered vandalism when people decide to draw, destroy, or violate any persons property without consent. As a result of taggers committing the crime of vandalism, property owners, concerned citizens, and law enforcement officers spend too much time, money, and energy trying to put an end to the unlawful act of vandalism.
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.
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.
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),