robbiej wrote:To all the 'writers':
Firstly i agree that graffiti can be art. that being said i have a couple of questions regarding the images in this thread.
1. if art is defined (loosely) as the use of images or sound to transmite ideas or emotions to observers or listeners, then what is the message being sent in the images in this thread? is it political? social? what are you trying to say about society? or the human condition?
2. How do feel your 'art' is contributing to the betterment of society or to mankind as a whole. in short. how does it make the world a better palce for the majority.
3. lastly. do you see any negative aspects of 'tagging'?.
I don´t think anyone have said anything about art . . . the tread title is "The ugly side of graf" . . .
To me graff is something beyond art, art have been more and more institutionalized the last 100 years.
And to me it looks like this have made a culture that is limiting the possibilities of pushing the boundaries of art . . .
I know some people that have finished the norwegian academy of fine arts (writers), and after what they tell much of what the schools focus on is learning the students how to push themselves as a product.
And I can see the use of this, we all need to earn our money somewhere.
Nevertheless most people in this forum will agree ( I hope) that if a newly starting dubstep producers uses most of the time on making record deals and making a living out of it, instead of making killer tunes . . .
dubstep wouldn´t represent something that pushes the the boundaries of music production . . .
So to me graff represents the next level of art, and the criminal element makes it very hard to exploit economically, but after all we live in 2007, cash is king, so its all a matter of time before even graff is institutionalized !
And to your first question, the only thing I think graff is trying to communicate is that the way people saw the world 30 years ago, don´t need to be the way we see it now . . . why does concrete need to bee clean ? Why does a train look worse with paint on its side, or on its seats ? AND WHO IS TO DECIDE !!!
to your second question; how does any art contribute to make the world a better palce for the majority ?
As far as I have understood, art impressions is so personal that it vill never make any impact on the majority.
But hopefully some individuals vill have small moments of joy passing bombing in the streets, breaking up the dreariness of everyday life . . .
The last question is a very complex one . . .
Graff have existed the way we know it now since the early 70´s, and its been countered in many ways. But mainly in very hostile ways. In Norway we have had a straight up war since the early 90´s. Special graffiti squads hiding in the bushes and beating you up when they catch you. Extremely high fines [sometimes £20 000- £50 000 for kids that is under 18], politicians presenting graff as a major expense for society, using shady statistics to make it believable . . .
The effect here has been a graffculture based around a very small hardcore group that uses all their time bombing trains and walls all over . . . This have made a look that is very ruff and is based on a maximum of 5-15 minutes before you have to get out . . . [We used 7 minutes on the wholecar in my picures, and that is very long time in oslo]
So its self explanatory that this style appeals to allot less people than e.g. the style in barcelona where you can paint wherever you want at any time without being disturbed . . .
.spiro.
[/img]
