Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?
by Paul Cox, published on April 10, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Storyline: Midtown Graffiti Scene
Loading images
You can’t escape it if you’ve been downtown for more than 5 minutes. Whether it’s a large mural, a few hastily scrawled “letters”, or an unintelligible scribble. Graffiti, an art form to some, a nuisance to others.
I’ve seen it on cross country trips as Amtrak passes any number of freight trains. It’s nearly the signature of the New York City Subway system.
What is graffiti? It depends on who you ask. The most common, and in my opinion least attractive, is tagging. Usually done with a paint pen on a street sign or a business door or window.
The kind of graffiti I saw on those trains is a more elaborate form of tagging. Sometimes it’s a persons nickname, other times it’s a word, occasionally, social commentary. These pieces can take one to several hours to complete, and can involve elaborate shading and shadows.
Then there are those that not only involve words, but characters—people. Some feature the characters subtly, for some it is the prominent focus. These can take hours and sometimes days to complete, depending on the complexity and the size.
I like all of these except tagging. The time and artistry put into these is not that of a tag. It’s the mark of someone who cares, who has practiced many hours…years, with paint stained hands and fume-ridden lungs.
The problem is one of space. The medium of spray paint art does not lend itself to a small canvas. This leads to large canvases being utilized. And since this art form began in the lower income areas, the canvases became the trains and alleyways of their neighborhoods.
Local businesses have been working on opening up the opportunity for graffiti artists to show their work, and improve the appearance of some downtown alleyway and walls, whose appearance leaves a lot to be desired.
The problem, as with many art forms, has been the contention that “this is not art.” Much as junk sculpture and other controversial art forms have been discussed at length, the graffiti art to many, is still a form of vandalism. Nevermind the huge murals that have been completed and the amazing artistry involved, that if seen on a canvas would be snatched up in a moment. Some still can’t shake that notion that it’s upper class vandalism.
I, for one, see it differently. So come join myself and many others at 17th and I streets tonight and tomorrow at Second Saturday (6 to late both nights), to enjoy the amazing art, both graffiti themed, and in more traditional art done by graffiti artists. That may come as a shock to some, but as much as an oil painter may dabble in watercolor, so graffiti artists dabble in other mediums. So come enjoy the amazing show and awesome music planned for this great event made possible by SaraJane & Co. (www.sarajaneandco.com) of 908 21st Street.
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
The argument goes like this - public space belongs to the public. But only the rich can buy it (Clear Channel, CBS, etc...) Look at SF, NY or Tokyo - the cities are littered with lights promoting consumption. Does graffiti promote consumption? Personally, I like to see good graffiti in the city in weird places. No, I don't like to see it up in the mountains when I'm fishing, and really never have. It's an urban form of art and it's here to stay - I just can't get into it in a controlled environment. It's like fishing in at the pond at William Land Park - it looses the power and meaning of doing real graffiti, that's my two cents, or three...
The movie, "Bomb It" says it all -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi1mo3ngfUs&feature=related"
Another great clip - longer (5:42') from Bomb It - historical perspective with roots in Zoots and Chicanos from Olvera street in the 1920's (I remember going there as a boy with my family, way better than the state fair, and no rides.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D-GGwKDj6Q&feature=related
So what is lost in this whole graffiti argument is whether nature or other’s property, public spaces and craftsmanship should be respected. That argument holds whether we are referring to graffiti locally or worldwide.
Graffiti artists think that their work should be respected. I agree when done in the right place. There is a whole body of people out there who believe nature and private places should be respected too. Therein lies the conflict. BUT apparently graffiti artists and vandals feel that they have the right to disrespect nature and the artisans who created those places—forget the property owners for the moment.
Examples include graffiti and tags on tree trunks which disrespects nature; on wooden, brick or stone buildings disrespects the construction workers, and nature’s woods, stones and materials from which the bricks were made AND the skills of the carpenters, stone masons and the bricklayers. It is that simple.
I am one of the other body of folks who ask, “By what line of reasoning does a graffiti artist or tagger feel that they have the right to disrespect nature and artisans’ works?” The only answer I can come up with is—skilled as they may be-- they don’t have the right. So then are they acting out of self-centered selfish interests?
As to side issues, in all art forms, the "power and meaning" is subjective. I might find one display site both powerful and meaningful and someone else may not. The young man on U-tube used “powerful” as he viewed some graffiti. I admired the skill but I didn’t find it powerful. So that does not give either of us the right to tell others what we find "powerful and meaningful" should be displayed on a site we choose whether that be on private property or in public places.
54cv183's comments are particularly enlightening as to attitude and logic. He says where he doesn't like seeing it. I agree. It may be his opinion that graffiti is “urban” but the fact is that graffiti is rural too and has been around in the countryside for decades, if not centuries.
Did it occur to him and other graffiti defenders that there is a large segment of society that doesn't like seeing graffiti on private property or public places in both urban and rural areas—just as he does not like it when he’s fishing?
And just like artists whose work hangs in art museums, graffiti artists or taggers have no right to impose the display of their work on private property or in public places. Many private properties also display works of art they like in their lobbies or on exterior sites. Some people like them and some don’t. But that display choice is up to the owner—corporate or individual.
“Lights” on property “promoting consumption” may be seen by the public BUT the property is still private and is there by choice. Artisans created those lights too. (Go the Neon Museum in L.A.)
54cv183 is partially right that “art in public would be approved by the government.” He is wrong when he implies that government approval is censorship. Governments were formed to maintain some kind of order as opposed to anarchy. We the people have delegated to government the task of overseeing the condition and maintenance of public spaces.
If we don’t like that then join with others to change it. This country does allow dissent, difficult as it may be to organize and obtain those changes, history shows that it can be done. If you are in the majority, you win; if you are in the minority, you lose.
Some don't like to see graffiti in the mountains when they're hiking or fishing, because to them the mountains are beautiful and important and should be protected from vandalism. I'm a city guy, I do my hiking in Midtown for the most part, and I think the beauty of Sacramento's historic homes, its old industrial buildings, and even its trees (lots of taggers down here tag trees) shouldn't be subjected to the scrawls of taggers and vandals.
If i was a "car keying artist", would you have the psuedo-progressive attitude twards a piece of artwork I scratched into your car's paintjob? I am an artist, but i also respect the fact that alot of people don't want me painting stuff on the side of their house. Its called being an adult. The reason that public art walls never work that well is the fact that most of the taggers are just vandals
"Upper class vandalism" seems to be a term for those that have not actually seen the works of art produced by talented artists. What many people might not realize is that although there is a stigma attached to graffiti artists, many of them are actual artists that are victim of circumstances and have never been given a platform to display their art. Rather, giving a space to graffiti artists to send their messages to the community is turning a potentially negative situation (vandalism) into a very positive one.