Competition for visibility was intense as graffiti artists struggled to put up as many tags as possible. This led to a surge of graffiti on New York subway cars, that - once painted - would carry the artist's tag across the city. Tags became more and more complex and colourful: bubble-style works gave way to designs with polka dots and crosshatches. Meanwhile, in , street artists began to include additional features in their works, such as cartoon characters into their work.
Subway "top-to-bottoms" expanded to cover entire cars; "throw-ups" made their first appearance, as did the "wild style" of painting, and "all-city" artists, whose works could be seen in all five boroughs.
It was during the s that graffiti art began to be strongly associated with hip hop culture, eventually becoming one of its three key elements - along with music rapping, DJing and dance break dancing. By the turn of the decade mainstream art dealers apart from Hugo Martinez were beginning to respond: the Italian art collector and dealer Claudio Bruni staged an exhibition of works in Rome by American graffiti painters Lee Quinones and Fab 5 Freddy. This decade witnessed a number of developments.
To begin with, it saw the appearance of the first stencil graffiti genre. Also, New York's Metro Transit Authority MTA decided to make graffiti eradication on the subway a top priority, causing many artists to quit writing altogether - a response further encouraged by new restrictions on the sale of aerosol spray paint, and extra street violence caused by the crack cocaine epidemic.
By the late s, only the most die-hard artists were still active in NYC, and in , New York city authorities instigated the Clean Train Movement to remove all defaced subway cars from circulation.
Although highly successful in removing traces of graffiti from the subway system, it led to a major increase in aerosol art on the streets of America.
It is a burden on private businesses and municipalities to remove it. My friends in JP have had gangs tags spray painted on their mailboxes on their porches , fences and houses. Comparing it to the way recorded music is distributed — illegally, without compensating the artists is weak.
Not is it art? I thought it was beatuiful—vibrant, colorful, etc. What happened to that wall? It was painted over, because they were afraid this mural would act as invitation to deface the area. I remeber feeling diappointed that I would not get see this public art anymore it was amazing —but I understood that they were right to remove it — that in no time, Coolidge Corner would be covered in unwanted spray paint. The same work of art, or not can be perceived as art, and a good one, by one person, and just a filth, or bad art by another.
Graffiti artists choose the very public display of their work on purpose to either cause shock or some other reaction, or to garner recognition, since the work is usually signed with a symbolic representation of themselves. He then goes one to disprove his original statement by stating the the graffiti artist craves the attention he gets both negative and positive. This is not the behavior of someone who cannot find any other outlet. However, his solution is quite sensible in that if the graffiti artist could collaborate with the property owner being amenable to displaying the artists work, a great deal of strife could be avoided not to mention tax dollars used to clean graffiti art, arrest, process and prosecute graffiti artists, etc.
Perhaps a web-site that matches property owners with graffiti artists? Great article. Shepard Fairey and Banksy are some of the masters of our generation. They should be celebrated. Good art is not a crime, and in my mind, good art comes from thought, planning, intelligence, and talent. Random graffiti lacking social messages is a waste of space and time and could even be considered a crime.
At the same time, though, it would be unjust to punish somebody for being a bad artist. I give mad credit to anyone who can make a name for himself turning empty walls into masterpieces with just cans of spraypaint and stencils. The issue is not whether graffiti is art as what is art is always in the eye of the beholder and therefore trying to answer the question is graffiti art is a futile exercise. The issue in the case of graffiti is does the artist have a right to put his or her art wherever they so choose.
The answer to this question is no and must be no to ensure a civil society. For if we say that a graffiti artist can play their craft wherever they choose then is the same true for a landscape artist, for example? Does this mean that a landscape artist can cut the tree down in my yard as a way of gaining voice?
Where does it all end? Is there then any such thing as private property rights? I agree with the answer to this question. I agree this. And of course responsible for maintanence of the canvis. Art should be publicly displayed without profanity of course.
The most important factor in my opinion has been grossly understated or ignored in this discussion; the idea property ownership and trespass. When I purchase a home or business, I believe I pay for the right to determine the color of the paint, the design of the landscaping, placement of artwork and within city ordinances, the signage.
Graffiti has been looked at in very many ways for a while now. Is it art? Is it not art? Should it be illegal? According to a poll in on cbsnews. Twitter Facebook Email Pinterest. Street art Street art is related to graffiti art in that it is created in public locations and is usually unsanctioned, but …. Public art The term public art refers to art that is in the public realm, regardless of whether it is situated on …. Street Art Talks - Graffiti: Utopia or a bit boring?
Part of a series of talks related to the past …. Jean Dubuffet — Mark Wallinger born
0コメント