[RP TownTalk] TownTalk Digest, Vol 56, Issue 18

[Brian Boettger]

I think what is being debated is 2 different things. Graffiti and graffiti art.
There have been artists that made millions from graffiti. Jean Michel Basquiat is the first that comes to mind. 
...and it is usually the act of making the graffiti that is part of the art, not just the finish piece of art. Graffiti is probably the truest form of expressionism and at the root 'art'. You don't have to like it, but it is art. I'm sure if someone painted something equating to the Mona Lisa on a wall in the middle of the night it would be a different story.
However, I'm sure we might agree that a random vulgarity is not desirable and should be removed, but to not call it art is disingenuine to the concept. 
Brian Boettger

> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:47:53 -0400
> From: Eric <eric at ickyfoot.com>
> To: towntalk at riverdale-park.org
> Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Graffiti
> Message-ID: <4D8A0819.7060409 at ickyfoot.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I haven't written in awhile, but I wanted to chime in on the issue of 
> graffiti as art. First, though, I'd like to express my gratitude to our 
> town government and our police force for taking such swift action 
> regarding the graffiti I discovered in the park. Also, thanks to Mayor 
> Archer for following up with us in person.
> 
> Now, regarding graffiti in general, in my opinion it can be a truly 
> artistic endeavor. This doesn't in any way mitigate the sting I felt 
> last week when I got to the bottom of the slide with my son and noticed 
> the hateful comments that sparked this debate. It also doesn't mean that 
> I think simply scrawling some words on a surface constitutes making art. 
> But, I've seen some truly inspiring graffiti along the Red Line in 
> Silver Spring and near Ft Totten, along the train lines in rural 
> Netherlands and downtown Zurich, etc. The people who created those works 
> obviously put a great deal of thought and effort into what they were 
> doing, and are, imo, undeniably talented artists.
> 
> Having said that, I do find it to be extremely disrespectful and 
> rightfully illegal to deface public or (especially) private property. 
> But, I don't see how that has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not 
> the lawbreaker is making art. The two issues are utterly discrete. 
> Imagine if some of the more impressive specimens you might see were 
> commissioned murals on the side of a building or on a piece of canvass 
> in a museum; would it be as offensive? Is the vitriol that arises in 
> response to graffiti a reaction to the defacing of property or to the 
> imagery itself?
> 
> If the phrase "intellectual cultural perverts" is a reaction to the 
> imagery of a perceived generic "graffiti", then I wonder what that 
> phrase sounds like in Liturgical Latin. Art has always had the power to 
> deeply offend the general population and rouse the ire of those who seek 
> to and sometimes succeed in controlling what is and isn't acceptable 
> self expression (the Church, authoritarian regimes, curators, art 
> teachers, critics, etc). Fortunately, art is irrepressible and it is 
> increasingly common to find examples of graffiti being displayed in 
> respectful ways (commissioned murals, in museums, etc). Now, I'm not a 
> highly-educated armchair artist (aka, an art critic), but I've taken 
> myriad art and art history courses over the years, have visited 
> countless art museums in the US and Europe, the halls of the Vatican, 
> the Sistine Chapel, etc., and have known and worked extensively with 
> artists on various projects over the years. The only constant I've 
> noticed regarding flourishing new art forms is their ability to outlive 
> the critics of their day.
> 
> Anyway, to hold out what I discovered in our park as a defining example 
> of graffiti or to suggest that there's some monolithic style or intent 
> is highly inaccurate. It'd be like saying Mondrian exemplifies all 
> modern art ;). Seriously, though, I'm not sure how many of you saw it, 
> but it was literally just unadorned words written with a sharpie marker; 
> the first page of images arising from a Google Search of "graffiti" make 
> it obvious that the art form is far more evolved than that:
> http://www.google.com/images?q=graffiti&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1440&bih=815 
> <http://www.google.com/images?q=graffiti&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1440&bih=815>
> 
> (I'm realizing now that these are similar to the results Bruce linked, 
> but I'll leave it in anyway ;).
> 
> -Eric
> 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20110325/2ef4bd22/attachment-0002.html>