
"The pedestals have remained empty, except for the accumulation of trash and graffiti."
"Two 'empty' sites of two 'failed' public art works."
Couldn't these remains be considered another form of public art by default? The negative connotations that come with 'graffiti' always strikes me as extremely interesting. How can people of the art world sit back and deem Katharina Grosse's public art as important and worthy of critical study and yet the anonymous guerilla public art of graffiti is considered as "failed" and comparable to "trash."
I understand that not all graffiti is looked down on or produced by the delinquent demographic. However, the stigma attached to such a creative and interesting form of art always disappoints me. Even the lowest common denominator graffiti, the "Fuck you" and the "SLUT" and the oh so detailed phallic imagery I see on buses and trains day after day are more interesting than staring at a bare brick wall. It almost validates that brick wall, makes us aware of it's existence.
I remember when I studied photography in year 11, one of our assessments was to go out, photograph graffiti, and then at the end of semester we were to build a brick wall in the gallery and pin our photos to it for an exhibition called "piece wall." It was humiliating on so many levels. Not only was it a big fat plagiarised slap in the face to the original artists, but the idea that for this type of art to be socially acceptable it had to be institutionalised and its intent completely contradicted really saddened me.
On opening night, watching the 60-something year olds sipping their sauvignon blanc whilst contemplating the "art" sickened me. These same people consider the beautiful and obscene graffiti work on the sides of schools or bus stops "disgusting."
How about for once, we put the public art of graffiti on a pedestal and make the city our sketchbook.
p.s I'm sorry this was posted just before class- my internet wasn't working over the weekend.
No comments:
Post a Comment