Graffiti is rarely seen as a legitimate
art form and it's hardly described as
'free speech'. The government's
impression is that the vandalism
is done by brats with no intelligence.
Graffiti is said to have no meaning
other than to relay messages
among 'gang members'. Society
and its media declares graffiti
as the defacing of property with
worthless rubbish created by
the immoral youth.
Many of the scribbles on the alley walls mean nothing and
are not art, but that's just some of the shit out of a much
larger bowl. There is art on the streets; it's just rare.
Whether if it's on a canvas in a art museum or the west
wall of the local pub you can't deny a beautiful work of art.
If I woke next morning to some scribbles on my front door
I would be a bit pissed. I understand that property owners
hate vandalism, but there's a huge difference between
"Da G DOG waz Here" and a a stencil of a little girl
holding a bomb. If it has a deep political/social/etc...
message then it's art. More so, if it was sprayed on a
government building. That's free speech, and free speech
doesn't care about the law.
I know the line between 'art' and 'not art' is a grey one and
that the definition will never be settled, but the extremes on
each side can clearly be seen. For instance, take the work of
Britain's most illusive graffiti artist, Banksy. He's known for
his significant social and political commentary. His work reflects
his feelings on the government, the Queen, authority, prejudices,
social classes and hypocrisy. One of his signatures stencils is that
of the rat. He uses rats as a representation for the people below
the powerful, which includes most of the population.
When you see one of Banksy's stencils you know you're
looking at expression at its finest.
Although Banksy's home is the
UK he's one of the few to tag his
message all over the world.
Not only can you see his art in
London and LA, you can
actually see his markings in
Palestine. His work is displayed
on the Israeli Apartheid Wall
(the wall that separates
Israel and Palestine).
You can't say that's not art.
After a decade of delivering
messages with spray paint
Banksy's identity still remains
hidden, even with the massive publicity. And that's good since,
you know, what he does is illegal. All that matters, though,
is that people see what he does and understand it.
When it's beautiful art made for the public to see and when it
has no major negative impact on the owner of the canvas,
I don't see how it's wrong. If it's for artistic freedom and
used to deliver a message that needs to be heard, it just
isn't wrong. All this graffiti is on an otherwise ugly structure
anyways. Furthermore, graffiti is more art than most of the
paintings in a museums, because graffiti is there for
everyone to see, not just for some snobby intellectual
wannabes in an art show. Graffiti is for those who need
to see it the most, the people walking down the streets
who never go to an art show. The message is as much
for them as it is for the art scholars.
Vandalism is never welcomed, but art always
has a right to speak.
Angelo
Banksy.co.uk (gallery)
Banksy @ Wikipedia
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment