Over the weekend, I went to a friend’s house. We started talking about art and he showed me some of the stuff he was interested in. So he opens up a folder on this computer and up comes thumbnails of vivid street-style bubble writing that all can recognise as graffiti art.
This suddenly reminded me of this module. Most would consider graffiti art as bad and even tasteless. The latter is true. Nasty scribbles that look as though they’ve been done by a five year old are an eyesore, especially those that depict obscene or offensive messages. But the more artistic ones that had taken a lot of time to do are quite cool, as well as the fluid street-style scribbles.
But I do disagree with graffiti art that’s applied on someone else’s car, house or fence. This is because it’s unauthorised. The artist hadn’t asked the owner to draw on their property and violates the owner’s right to have their property the way they want it: nice and clean. Not to mention, it is the owner who has to pay to get the unwanted scribbles removed, not the artist.
I think this sort of behaviour is considered bad because the artist isn’t considering the fact that the owner of the house doesn’t want their property damaged. After all, you wouldn’t draw on someone’s clothes because you feel like it? And you certainly wouldn’t smash someone’s window because you think the house would look better if the window was smashed?
So why else is graffiti art considered bad? I think it’s because of its connotations with delinquency and the fact that it’s done by poor youths with ASBOs. After all, have we ever seen a well behaved rich kid spray-painting a wall?
What annoys me about graffiti art on public transport is that the tax payers have to pay to get it removed, so we waste money every year for something that we’re not responsible for and doesn’t benefit anyone. I’m not dismissing the art itself, if anything I think it should be showcased somehow. According to Alex Rayner in the Guardian, “curators, dealers and buyers now accept graffiti as worthy contemporary art”. It would be a shame for such impressive work to be dismissed and looked down upon because of its association with crime.
This suddenly reminded me of this module. Most would consider graffiti art as bad and even tasteless. The latter is true. Nasty scribbles that look as though they’ve been done by a five year old are an eyesore, especially those that depict obscene or offensive messages. But the more artistic ones that had taken a lot of time to do are quite cool, as well as the fluid street-style scribbles.
But I do disagree with graffiti art that’s applied on someone else’s car, house or fence. This is because it’s unauthorised. The artist hadn’t asked the owner to draw on their property and violates the owner’s right to have their property the way they want it: nice and clean. Not to mention, it is the owner who has to pay to get the unwanted scribbles removed, not the artist.
I think this sort of behaviour is considered bad because the artist isn’t considering the fact that the owner of the house doesn’t want their property damaged. After all, you wouldn’t draw on someone’s clothes because you feel like it? And you certainly wouldn’t smash someone’s window because you think the house would look better if the window was smashed?
So why else is graffiti art considered bad? I think it’s because of its connotations with delinquency and the fact that it’s done by poor youths with ASBOs. After all, have we ever seen a well behaved rich kid spray-painting a wall?
What annoys me about graffiti art on public transport is that the tax payers have to pay to get it removed, so we waste money every year for something that we’re not responsible for and doesn’t benefit anyone. I’m not dismissing the art itself, if anything I think it should be showcased somehow. According to Alex Rayner in the Guardian, “curators, dealers and buyers now accept graffiti as worthy contemporary art”. It would be a shame for such impressive work to be dismissed and looked down upon because of its association with crime.
Link:
No comments:
Post a Comment