Something a little different this week.Many of you may have seen the rainbow drippings on some buildings around ABQ, particularly in the downtown area.
To some it is seen as art. To others, however, it is vandalism.
What is your stance on this particular case? (You can check out this link to read an interview with the "artist" http://alibi.com/feature/33316/Rainbow-Warrior.html)
What are your feelings about graffiti in general?
Have any interesting stories?
I can't wait : )
22 comments:
I am actually a fan of graffiti as an art. I do not agree with the vandalism factor. It is not something that I agree with at all, there is a way to draw graffiti without violating personal property. That's another story though. :P I actually think that most graffiti has a beautiful underlying meaning to it. It is amazing to see artists who can bring in any type of political, emotional or personal meaning to any canvas. I went to Europe a few years ago and I was amazed by the graffiti on the streets. There were political messages that were so discrete but so powerful in pictures. I think that the purpose for the rainbow drippings is agreeable. I understand the reasoning for it, and I think that when the artist points out the fact that authorities focus on little things like art expression (graffiti) rather than the many homeless people on the streets. There are bigger problems to be focusing on and that is a very good point. However, I can't disagree with the authorities for pursuing an arrest. I think something that the artist said in the interview that was interesting was that he did it for the purpose of other people. He wanted others to use their imagination to reminisce on things. Rainbows express happiness and typically are not sad things. The artist did the graffiti not for self glory, but for people around him. I appreciate that in an artist and I think his purpose for this was in good heart.
Graffiti is given a negative connotation as vandalism because of its origin as a way for gangs and other "hoodlums" to make their mark. It was looked at as a way of rebelling against the system...marking territory as a way to obtain dominance. Yet, over the years this has changed and graffiti has become a beautiful translation of art. It's an art form that celebrates the streets giving cities and towns character. The other day I was looking at a book of graffiti and some of the works are exquisite showcasing a true skill. Yes, there are definitely people who graffiti to deface public property, but there are is also graffiti art meant to exhibit life's beauty and evoke pleasant emotions. I look at graffiti either way depending on the reason for its existence....what the author's message is behind the statement. I welcome the rainbow graffiti as a splash of color to maybe a dull gloomy day.. its that little subconscious reminder that you are alive and the day is good. We become so busy nowadays that we wrap around the chaos, the hardships, the distractions and we lose sight of the beauty. I welcome any art that can inspire and bring a smile people's face.
My friend Gilbert who is one of the sweetest guys I know is big into graffiti but not to make known who he is but because he loves to bring about an emotion within people, he loves the idea that he is touching someone in a positive way ... and isn't that what any artist wants?
It's art. In my mind, there is no question about it. That is not to say that all graffiti is art, some is just vandalism. The distinction lies in the creators intent. If you paint or paste something onto a wall to make a political, social or even personal statement with intent for it be viewed, by the public, as art, then it is street art.
Albuquerque is a little behind the true urban centers as far as the street art trend is concerned because while it is relatively novel here, it is common place in majors cities like NY or LA. While it is still considered subversive, street art is a movement that is gaining a ton of momentum. The new generation of artists either do it or totally embrace it, so while it is eventually doomed to become the "academy" right now it's as avant garde as it gets. You can see this momentum growing with things like the underbelly project, a secret/illegal exhibit put up in abandoned tunnels under New York City or the Banksy movie, Exit through the Gift Shop. I bet a lot of people have seen this movie, but if not, I really recommend it. It's a pretty impressive documentary featuring several of the biggest names in street art and it's also a great critique of the nature of art in the commercial world.
Street art is a valid form of artistic expression and I think, or at least hope, that in the near future people are going to realize and welcome this. And seriously if I had an ugly, abandoned wall, I would love for someone to put some art up on it free of charge. : )
I really liked Aubrey's post on how graffiti for most artists is to give a positive outcome. I agree with her that nowadays most graffiti artists are thought of as negative or as vandalists. This is really untrue for a lot of cases, not all, but a lot of cases. Graffiti is a way to spread a message that movies and music can't. Graffiti is shown to every one who drives by instead of held in a gallery that not every one has time or money to see. It spreads the message effectively and for some artists it can be a positive message.
I couldn’t open the link! But I agree, graffiti is given a bad reputation because some of the graffiti in places with gang problems, whether real or not, the graffiti leans toward the gangs marking their “territory”. When these types of people go around ruining anything from the sides of buildings to trash cans to stop signs, its hard not to think that any time of graffiti is a form of vandalism. But the thought, or lack of, that goes through creating the art graffiti is amazing. I tried it once, in a wall in one of my classes, and the thought behind it was “no though”, pure emotion of what we were feeling, what we were going through, and the power to just do something that others might simply not understand and what has to be left up to others for their translation is stunning. No one feels the same way, so no one sees anything the same. When I see a balloon someone might see a bouncy ball, the possibilities are endless and how you go about your day reflects how you will be affected by the graffiti. It’s always a pleasant experience to see a little color on the side of an otherwise ordinary wall.
It seems to me that a lot of the controversy surrounding graffiti is legality. Sometimes, marking up a building is illegal because it's not your property. This Rainbow Artist seems to have tried to avoid this by painting on abandoned city buildings, but the question remains: where do we draw the line between art and vandalism?
I appreciate public art. Would we ban street performers for "disturbing the peace"? I'm not sure how I feel about banning graffiti, especially when it's non-aggressive like this. I've had some theatre training in exploring and using your environment; touching surfaces, experimenting with how you can interact with things around you (crawling on the floor, kicking off the wall, walking tip-toe along the edge of the stage, etc.), so the notion of graffiti as a kind of art that utilizes what's around you appeals to me.
Still, I have to admit that there's nothing particularly appealing I find about "traditional" graffiti - the kind more associated with gang/territory-tagging. Do I approve of the Rainbow Artist because his graffiti is "prettier"?
Like @edifani, I'm also of the leaning that for something to be art it should be intentional; but there is plenty of argument out there for unintentional art (see this video: http://goo.gl/vBy9A), and there are plenty of intentional things we do that we wouldn't consider art (is writing a paper art? is reading the newspaper an art? is playing a sport an art?)
What's most interesting about this to me are the questions it raises about what art is, who gets to make it, and where can it be made. I certainly wouldn't appreciating someone putting their "art" on the side of my car. But on an abandoned building that nobody cares about anyway? Why not make it a little nicer to look at?
I'd actually never seen this before, but I think its beautiful. Graffiti is a difficult thing. On one hand, I think that it is a kind of self expression, an art form, yet on the other hand graffiti is not usually fun for the person that has to clean it up or has to pay for it to be removed.
I think there should be a difference between street art and vandalism, maybe. To me this seems more like street art, Political street art, but art none the less. Vandalism to me is more destructive, like tags, gang signs. I think there is a difference.
I'm all for art, in any shape and form, but I don't like the idea of defacing someone else personal property. I wish there was someway for artists like this to have license to spread art that wouldn't cause problems for anyone. I think it's pretty though.
I couldn't open the link either, but I'm curious as to what the artist says about his work.
In reading everyone's comments, I noticed that I have a negative reaction the word "graffiti" but don't mind so much when it's called "street art." I also connect graffiti with its origin to gangs and such, which is probably where that comes from.
Anyway, I don't quite agree with street art on public buildings, though I think abandoned walls are excellent canvases. Part of my reasoning comes from the fact that I work at an architecture firm, so I see how much work goes into creating a building, (which is a work of art in itself I think). If the architect wanted to incorporate more art into the design, they would. And many do.
I think personal opinions and predispositions greatly influence how we percieve graffiti and its "rightful place" in our communities. I don't have a very strong opinion one way or the other about street art. For example, someone spray painted squiqqly stick figures walking miniature giraffes along a wall outside Woodward Hall, and I wondered what the point was. The repeated image was amusing, but I couldn't decide if I liked it, or if it had a purpose, or if it should have been put somewhere else. As something to simply look at, it was a little interesting. I don't feel like it had a message or a reason, though someone can certainly prove me wrong.
I think street art is meant to evoke a strong reaction from those who see it. Otherwise the artist could put the same thing on a large canvas.
Everybody had very interesting comments about graffiti.
I come from a very small town where any graffiti is unfortunately not very artistic, just random names. I think that type of graffiti is vandalism, especially when it is on old historical buildings, that are important to the town. It's sad how people can be careless enough to vandalize these buildings.
However, I have seen some amazing graffiti that leaves me astonished. For instance, I don't know if any of you have seen the tunnel by the structure across from the UNM hospital. There used to be a graffiti of a cute little ghost. It was there since I came to UNM. However, a few months ago it was painted over. At first I was a little upset, because it was my little ghost :) but then somebody made a different graffiti. It was beautiful very colorful and about nothing in particular. I even stopped to admire it several times, but it wasn't long before it too was painted over. The tunnel looked ridiculous most of the graffiti was painted over but some near the top was still noticeable. I think the last time I walked by it had been graffiti-ed but it wasn't anything extraordinary. The "artist" must have tired of working hard on his graffiti. I did't think there was anything wrong with the graffiti in the tunnel. It wasn't really out where everybody could see it or where it could degrade UNM.
So, it really depends on the location of the graffiti, the graffiti itself, and the intentions of the artist whether it is art or not. At first the rainbow graffiti didn't really look like art to me but after reading the artist's intentions my opinion changed.
I think that graffiti and tagging tend to get confused. Tagging which I don't think is art as all is when different gangs write their names on walls, trains and anything to mark their territory. Graffiti is the art form that was born out of the hip hop movement in the 70'a and 80's and is still very much alive today. Growing up in New York and DC I saw beautiful works of art on billboards, trains and buildings that were called vandalism by people outside my neighborhood but art to those of us who understood it. Graffiti is another form of art which is another form of expression.
As for the rainbow paintings I don't see them as vandalism either they are another form of expression.
I don't know how the authorities respond to graffiti here in New Mexico but on the east coast where i am from they are very strict on about it. There is a lot of negativity with it that comes from the gang problems and all graffiti is viewed as negative. I think that it is just another form of expression and it isn't hurting anyone so it is fine.
I think that graffiti and tagging tend to get confused. Tagging which I don't think is art as all is when different gangs write their names on walls, trains and anything to mark their territory. Graffiti is the art form that was born out of the hip hop movement in the 70'a and 80's and is still very much alive today. Growing up in New York and DC I saw beautiful works of art on billboards, trains and buildings that were called vandalism by people outside my neighborhood but art to those of us who understood it. Graffiti is another form of art which is another form of expression.
As for the rainbow paintings I don't see them as vandalism either they are another form of expression.
I don't know how the authorities respond to graffiti here in New Mexico but on the east coast where i am from they are very strict on about it. There is a lot of negativity with it that comes from the gang problems and all graffiti is viewed as negative. I think that it is just another form of expression and it isn't hurting anyone so it is fine.
I think that graffiti and tagging tend to get confused. Tagging which I don't think is art as all is when different gangs write their names on walls, trains and anything to mark their territory. Graffiti is the art form that was born out of the hip hop movement in the 70'a and 80's and is still very much alive today. Growing up in New York and DC I saw beautiful works of art on billboards, trains and buildings that were called vandalism by people outside my neighborhood but art to those of us who understood it. Graffiti is another form of art which is another form of expression.
As for the rainbow paintings I don't see them as vandalism either they are another form of expression.
I don't know how the authorities respond to graffiti here in New Mexico but on the east coast where i am from they are very strict on about it. There is a lot of negativity with it that comes from the gang problems and all graffiti is viewed as negative. I think that it is just another form of expression and it isn't hurting anyone so it is fine.
The link hates me as well and will not be cooperative.
As I read through these comments, I realized that I agree with Rachelle that personal opinions influence the way graffiti is perceived. I really am one of those people who can’t get past the vandalism part of the art form. I can see the line between art and simple tagging, but I can’t get on board with thinking it is more acceptable if the ruining of other people’s property is pretty to look at. Maybe my opinion would be different if I had grown up somewhere where this type of expression was more common or elaborate. The problem for me is that, although I might be impressed by the work, I always think that the cost of this one piece was more than the supplies to create it; it used a canvas that already belonged to someone, and someone will be made unhappy by this. The art can be impressive and worthy of respect. It can even be an enriching experience for someone to see it. Maybe the world is better for it, exposing people to things they otherwise would not have seen. I, personally just can’t bring myself to approve wholeheartedly. I blame my mother (and roll my eyes, because I really am sure that her influence is at play here).
Just an FYI the link does not work...but if you Google Alibi Rainbow Graffiti, you will find it.
@Ife, I think you make an interesting point in distinguishing "graffiti" from "tagging"; I didn't know that about the origins of graffiti, thanks for sharing!
It's hard to draw the line between the two, because when does graffiti become tagging? When does art become vandalism? I can understand that if a city is trying to cut out all forms of vandalism they would be hesitant to allow more "artistic" graffiti, even if it is a harmless mode of self-expression.
While there are a lot of interesting (and I think somewhat unanswerable) questions that this issue raises regarding the nature of art and what is acceptable as art (e.g. just because something is offensive doesn't mean it can't be art; sometimes artists want to be offensive), I think the real issue here is one of place and context.
There are art galleries where artists can display their work without criticism, but (as is clear from this post) choosing to use the side of a building as our canvas will cause controversy, even if what exactly you're putting on that wall isn't particularly controversial.
Graffiti is vandalism and art at the same time. Art is a means of expression, whether good or bad.
Sometimes, however graffiti is not art, like when cuss words are written on buildings, or drawn penises.
There was a group of serial killers in the twin cities and chicago who drew smiley faces around where their victim lie dead. I do not find that form of graffiti very respectful or artistic.
However, there definitely are more positive forms of graffiti.. And the message is quite strong because it is placed on buildings and public property, which shows its message. Art is not necessarily meant to be legal. Therefore, art can be a form of vandalism.
Graffiti is an important and specific type of art. It's primary purpose is to be seen. People make art for different reasons. Some as a form of very personal self expression, some to make pointedly political statements, some to forge a connection to other people and for each of these(and the hundreds of other) reasons there is a specific arena where the work belongs. Though sometimes graffiti art is just art put on the street, other times the location it is placed and the visibility of the work is an critical element of the intention and meaning of the piece. Like the work Banksy did on the wall separating Israel and Palestine. It's sad to say, but the gallery and museum scene can be kind of elitist and inaccessible to the general public. Sometimes the best and maybe even the only way to get your message to the masses is to put it in a public place. Or just stick it in the Met yourself, anther Banksy stunt.
You all have made excellent points so far! @Ingrid, I think you are so right about the idea that art can be vandalism as well as beautiful and meaningful! For millennia art has been used as a form of expression and often was either under-appreciated or outright rejected. Art that would be seen as beautiful to one person may be seen as wrong to another. For instance, I go to a church that has a full band with drums, electric guitars, amazing vocalist, etc.; I love it and enjoy both the sound and quality of the music, but I know some traditional Christians who would see this type of music/art as a desecration of the church and as disrespectful to God. Artists are constantly stretching the rules in order to help society see something to which they were blind. Authors are famous for this, so why add street artists to this list of edgy trendsetters?
On the other hand, like so many of you, I can understand the genuine harm that can be caused by graffiti/tagging/etc. I have visited a few cities in Europe and I remember being shocked by the amount of tagging on these beautiful old buildings. It was as if the “artists” who had put up that graffiti had no respect for the artists who designed the buildings or for the many labors that built it. At the same time, I think it is sad that traditional art is often restricted to certain classes and therefore, so many people are not able to enjoy it. Street art is something that can cross boundaries and allow many to enjoy it. I think that the Rainbow Warrior was far from trying to “push himself forward” and was rather trying to share something beautiful with others. I don’t think I could have done it in his place, but I can very much respect his motivation.
I have to admit, I haven't seen the rainbow graffiti anywhere in Albuquerque, but now I'll keep my eye out for it.
Like many of you, I am a fan of graffiti as art. I think graffiti gains a lot of its negative connotations in that graffiti is usually expressed on a medium not belonging to the artist. I can imagine if someone had graffiti'd my newly painted fence with some type of gang sign- I would not be happy. On the other hand, if someone had graffiti'd an entire scene or landscape onto my fence, I might appreciate it more.
Where I come from, graffiti is a part of culture. In Manitou Springs, Colorado there is a place called "Rainbow Falls." It's so named for the way the sun light and the water droplets create beautiful rainbows. It does, however, have another name: "Graffiti Falls." I'm not sure about when this started, but the cliffs and mountainside where this waterfall is located on is ALWAYS covered with graffiti. I make it a point to go there every couple of months just to see the new pictures that are painted there. Graffiti allows for change.
If you're interested in some pictures of "Graffiti Falls" here are a couple of links:
http://larsleber.com/boards/2008_01/02/IMG_2367_800.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4007/4550063280_f9ac8247a1.jpg
At any rate, graffiti is a very powerful way of expression. Like any art form, it can be used in an inappropriate manner.
Sorry that the link didn't work :(
I really enjoyed getting to read all of your comments and excited that you had so much to talk about.
I agree with what quite a few people said with there being a fine line between graffiti as art and as vandalism. I personally see the Rainbow Graffiti as art because it catches my attention and makes me think. I also find it pretty to look at (not that all art has to be "pretty").
I also really liked what Candace said about graffiti being art that people can drive by and see without going to a gallery and paying money. Art should be accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford it. So I think street art (graffiti) is one of the simplest means of completing that task.
Im so sorry this post is late guys, I've had a lot of stuff going on this past week in my personal life and time literally got away from me!
Anyways, I completely agree that graffiti can be art. Not to generalize, but for many children who are growing up in inner city areas, where the schools cannot afford art programs, it's a great way for them to express themselves! In fact I think some of the grafffiti that you see in some parts of like 2nd street between paseo and montano is incredible. Tagging, or graffiti, really is an art form even if it isn't occuring on walls in public areas.
I also think it's great that people are trying to brighten up the city. I personally haven't seen any of these around town, but I think it's a great thing. Bad things happen in life, and you never know when someone is going to have a bad day and look up and see that rainbow and smile. To me, if that happens even once it's worth it.
Post a Comment