For my final art essay I decided to take an argumentative approach and tackle something which may or may not actually be art, graffiti. I was actually inspired by a film that we watched during my first year seminar, "Bomb It", which dealt with that question. Anyone else who took that class may remember the debate we had on whether graffiti counts as art, but now I would like to analyze graffiti from some the prespectives we have discussed in class. For the sake of length, I will not discuss the fact that graffiti is illegal and keep my arguments about it as aesthetically based as possible. Also I will limit my arguments to common graffiti found in the United States, as it does look different in Europe. So the question, is graffiti art or good art according to the criteria we have discussed in class?
Graffiti could be considered art from a formalist perspective. Formalist art could be described as art that is about itself, its own medium. Graffiti, is arguably about the location it is placed and how it is applied. Admittedly, this does not apply to political graffiti or name graffiti, but rather simple designs. Some graffiti artists, known as bombers, claim that their work is not actually graffiti if it is done on canvas in a studio. It is about marking a surface in a particular place. It could therefore be argued that it is about the surface, about itself.
Graffiti could also be considered art from an expressivist perspective. It can express the emotions of the artist. Many graffiti artists have what I see as a Romantic view of marking the world with their own names. Overall, a form of art that is about the artist.
Finally, one could argue that graffiti is art from a pragmatic perspective It is about how it influences those who encounter it. Whether these influences are a good thing or not is not the issue that I wish to discuss. This applies in particular to politically motivated graffiti, which makes a pragmatic statement.
I have never said that I find graffiti beautiful, in fact I do not find it beautiful, but the question I wish to tackle is could it if judged by the standards we have discussed be considered a work of art. I am not suggesting that anyone experiment with spray paint in the dead of night, but could we still call graffiti art?
-Laurel
Some graffiti is more art than other examples, don't you think?. The more the writing is subsumed into the other visual elements (shape, color, uncommunicative detail like curlicues, etc.), the more art-sy it is.
ReplyDeleteEven typefaces have different artistic properties that change the way they convey the basic message the words are designed (rhetorically) to convey.
Its legality or placement seems less important in terms of classifying this type of writing than the writing itself, though the placement of graffiti can certainly add to its impact or its legal status.
And then there's Michele Shocked's "Gaffiti Limbo," a great song!
What was the theme of your FYS? It sounds like a great class.