Mike Marcus
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 197
Likes โข 0
August 2008
|
The role of urban art, by Mike Marcus on Dec 2, 2008 16:22:21 GMT 1, Hi all
I recently got into a debate on the ยฃ50 thread when I announced an upcoming print release. The print is politically abrasive and emotionally challenging. It isn't exactly an aesthetically pleasing piece and some members felt that the thread wasn't an appropriate forum for such work.
I also noticed that another urban art forum on the web uses the words "subversive art" as part of its URL and it started me thinking about the role that this genre plays in the larger context of the art world.
Therefore I would appreciate your views on the following:
1) The established art world is notorious for promoting 'safe' art. Is one of the purposes of the urban genre to provide an outlet for artists who's work is too subversive or politicised to be acceptable to these people? Are there any limits on this? Do you feel that as this scene matures and starts to establish itself in galleries and museums, the old frontier attitude needs to be moderated in order to be accepted by its middle class fan-base?
2) Are photography, digital art, video and audio art valid formats within the urban art movement? In fact is there scope for branching out into other as yet unexplored media or has the aesthetic of the genre been predefined? Does the photographic print, video installation, etc have an equal value to screen prints and giclees in our scene and if not, why not?
Hi all
I recently got into a debate on the ยฃ50 thread when I announced an upcoming print release. The print is politically abrasive and emotionally challenging. It isn't exactly an aesthetically pleasing piece and some members felt that the thread wasn't an appropriate forum for such work.
I also noticed that another urban art forum on the web uses the words "subversive art" as part of its URL and it started me thinking about the role that this genre plays in the larger context of the art world.
Therefore I would appreciate your views on the following:
1) The established art world is notorious for promoting 'safe' art. Is one of the purposes of the urban genre to provide an outlet for artists who's work is too subversive or politicised to be acceptable to these people? Are there any limits on this? Do you feel that as this scene matures and starts to establish itself in galleries and museums, the old frontier attitude needs to be moderated in order to be accepted by its middle class fan-base?
2) Are photography, digital art, video and audio art valid formats within the urban art movement? In fact is there scope for branching out into other as yet unexplored media or has the aesthetic of the genre been predefined? Does the photographic print, video installation, etc have an equal value to screen prints and giclees in our scene and if not, why not?
|
|
|
The role of urban art, by rosstierney on Dec 2, 2008 16:43:42 GMT 1, if you were familiar with the people that felt the thread was inappropriate for your work then you wouldn't be asking yourself so many questions
if you were familiar with the people that felt the thread was inappropriate for your work then you wouldn't be asking yourself so many questions
|
|
Mike Marcus
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 197
Likes โข 0
August 2008
|
The role of urban art, by Mike Marcus on Dec 2, 2008 16:50:01 GMT 1, Well whatever their motives, I have to thank them for catalysing this train of thought. I think that the questions are important ones and as this genre becomes more established, there really should be some consensus on what we do and how we do it.
Maybe this is more a question for an artists only forum but I don't know if one exists - anyway, I think (hope) that collectors have much to contribute on the subject.
Well whatever their motives, I have to thank them for catalysing this train of thought. I think that the questions are important ones and as this genre becomes more established, there really should be some consensus on what we do and how we do it.
Maybe this is more a question for an artists only forum but I don't know if one exists - anyway, I think (hope) that collectors have much to contribute on the subject.
|
|
spirit
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,956
Likes โข 516
August 2007
|
The role of urban art, by spirit on Dec 2, 2008 17:13:51 GMT 1, I think you ask some interesting questions Marcus. RE your question 2 above:
Urban Art has grown out of the graffiti scene (daubing on walls) so the emphasis on 2D work (screenprints etc) is not surprising. However, there is a fair amount of work being produced in some of the the other media you mention. Eg, Sculpture (Banksy, Faile, Insect etc) and Photography (Slinkachu). However, I'm not so sure about the video and audio side of things and whether these formats have much to offer the movement at this time, other than in a documentary role - an excellent example of which was Romanywg's video of an hour in the life of Banksy's Tesco Flag street piece - which could almost be considered a work of art in itself.
Edit: Nick Walkers Vandal projections also come to mind as something a bit different
I think you ask some interesting questions Marcus. RE your question 2 above:
Urban Art has grown out of the graffiti scene (daubing on walls) so the emphasis on 2D work (screenprints etc) is not surprising. However, there is a fair amount of work being produced in some of the the other media you mention. Eg, Sculpture (Banksy, Faile, Insect etc) and Photography (Slinkachu). However, I'm not so sure about the video and audio side of things and whether these formats have much to offer the movement at this time, other than in a documentary role - an excellent example of which was Romanywg's video of an hour in the life of Banksy's Tesco Flag street piece - which could almost be considered a work of art in itself.
Edit: Nick Walkers Vandal projections also come to mind as something a bit different
|
|
skylarkin
New Member
Posts โข 283
Likes โข 19
June 2006
|
The role of urban art, by skylarkin on Dec 2, 2008 17:25:25 GMT 1, Well whatever their motives, I have to thank them for catalysing this train of thought. I think that the questions are important ones and as this genre becomes more established, there really should be some consensus on what we do and how we do it.
I think as you progress and read more on this forum by both artists and collectors alike that you will start to answer your own questions. As for Urban art, from my point of view its a little word for a huge genre of potential inclusions. Anything that has now a days been decided as you say 'too extreme for middle class' then it has been thrown into this groovy new word called 'Urban Art..its a little fresh, maybe risque and its where all the cool dudes hang out' - its like living in fecking Cornwall and hanging with the surfers.
Unfortunately its a totally s**te word used by those that dont get it, to categorise what they don't understand. My personal interest in this forum is street art (Although that has expanded as I have been introduced to different artists). Artists that don't necessarily push the boundaries cos its like the 'new punk era man', 'smash the machine'; but because they have something to say about their environment, they express themselves through what their environment implies to them. Your thoughts that '...there really should be some consensus on what we do and how we do it...' is trying to pigeon hole what is to my mind a totally open and expressive art form...I think the only real consensus is that you enjoy doing what you do..and don't get caught.. my 2pence worth...(modified cos i cant spelt)
Well whatever their motives, I have to thank them for catalysing this train of thought. I think that the questions are important ones and as this genre becomes more established, there really should be some consensus on what we do and how we do it. I think as you progress and read more on this forum by both artists and collectors alike that you will start to answer your own questions. As for Urban art, from my point of view its a little word for a huge genre of potential inclusions. Anything that has now a days been decided as you say 'too extreme for middle class' then it has been thrown into this groovy new word called 'Urban Art..its a little fresh, maybe risque and its where all the cool dudes hang out' - its like living in fecking Cornwall and hanging with the surfers. Unfortunately its a totally s**te word used by those that dont get it, to categorise what they don't understand. My personal interest in this forum is street art (Although that has expanded as I have been introduced to different artists). Artists that don't necessarily push the boundaries cos its like the 'new punk era man', 'smash the machine'; but because they have something to say about their environment, they express themselves through what their environment implies to them. Your thoughts that '...there really should be some consensus on what we do and how we do it...' is trying to pigeon hole what is to my mind a totally open and expressive art form...I think the only real consensus is that you enjoy doing what you do..and don't get caught.. my 2pence worth...(modified cos i cant spelt)
|
|
gilsteph
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,434
Likes โข 300
September 2006
|
The role of urban art, by gilsteph on Dec 2, 2008 17:41:41 GMT 1, Hey Mike, I like your work. Your blog is thoughtful and makes me think from another persons perspective.
Your images are striking. I first saw the gas mask woman as a tiny sticker on a postbox in brick lane. I loved it and searched you out. Thats enough for me.
If I wanted safe images I would go to IKEA.
And the medium isnt important for me. It could be on anything by anything. What I like about this art is that is out in the open. Everyone can see it and people who would never go into a gallery can appreciate/think about art.
I should say I wouldnt personally buy your latest print. But that doesnt stop me liking it or wanting to know a bit more about why you did it......
Hey Mike, I like your work. Your blog is thoughtful and makes me think from another persons perspective.
Your images are striking. I first saw the gas mask woman as a tiny sticker on a postbox in brick lane. I loved it and searched you out. Thats enough for me.
If I wanted safe images I would go to IKEA.
And the medium isnt important for me. It could be on anything by anything. What I like about this art is that is out in the open. Everyone can see it and people who would never go into a gallery can appreciate/think about art.
I should say I wouldnt personally buy your latest print. But that doesnt stop me liking it or wanting to know a bit more about why you did it......
|
|
|
romanywg
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,093
Likes โข 36
October 2006
|
The role of urban art, by romanywg on Dec 2, 2008 17:42:14 GMT 1, Hi all 2) Are photography, digital art, video and audio art valid formats within the urban art movement? In fact is there scope for branching out into other as yet unexplored media or has the aesthetic of the genre been predefined? Does the photographic print, video installation, etc have an equal value to screen prints and giclees in our scene and if not, why not?
Firstly 'Urban Art' horrible word. Audio art has/is being used in Street/Outsider Art Shows and has been used for some time. Armsrock used it really well at his collab show with Chris Stain at BRP. D*face used it for his installation at BRP and more recently I made the audio for the Herakut installation. As Pure Evil said at his talk at The Tate. When street art is in the gallery it becomes just art. To me street art works if it is seen at sometime on the street (and I don't just mean make a stencil for the street then sell the canvas). I can't see how video would work on that premise.
Hi all 2) Are photography, digital art, video and audio art valid formats within the urban art movement? In fact is there scope for branching out into other as yet unexplored media or has the aesthetic of the genre been predefined? Does the photographic print, video installation, etc have an equal value to screen prints and giclees in our scene and if not, why not? Firstly 'Urban Art' horrible word. Audio art has/is being used in Street/Outsider Art Shows and has been used for some time. Armsrock used it really well at his collab show with Chris Stain at BRP. D*face used it for his installation at BRP and more recently I made the audio for the Herakut installation. As Pure Evil said at his talk at The Tate. When street art is in the gallery it becomes just art. To me street art works if it is seen at sometime on the street (and I don't just mean make a stencil for the street then sell the canvas). I can't see how video would work on that premise.
|
|
Gurn
New Member
Posts โข 894
Likes โข 904
August 2007
|
The role of urban art, by Gurn on Dec 2, 2008 17:54:54 GMT 1, To answer your first point Mike,I believe that Street Art is, and I hope always will be visual outlet for the individual,be it political,subversive or just damn entertaining.Therefore,I believe their will always be those that push the limits and scratch away at us as we live our relatively safe and cosy lives.I have to say that your cs gas piece moved me in a way that most of the art on this forum doesn't...I say keep on keeping on fella.
To answer your first point Mike,I believe that Street Art is, and I hope always will be visual outlet for the individual,be it political,subversive or just damn entertaining.Therefore,I believe their will always be those that push the limits and scratch away at us as we live our relatively safe and cosy lives.I have to say that your cs gas piece moved me in a way that most of the art on this forum doesn't...I say keep on keeping on fella.
|
|
Mike Marcus
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 197
Likes โข 0
August 2008
|
The role of urban art, by Mike Marcus on Dec 2, 2008 19:29:44 GMT 1, Most of you have written about work on the street. Thankyou for your valuble contributions but what about the gallery/print collecting side of things? We can't deny that this aspect is increasingly important. Not least because it forms a source of income for the artists but also because it's a sign of the growing acceptance of the genre.
Should work be sanitized for exhibition and display on livingroom walls or should it retain it's rough and raw nature?
Most of you have written about work on the street. Thankyou for your valuble contributions but what about the gallery/print collecting side of things? We can't deny that this aspect is increasingly important. Not least because it forms a source of income for the artists but also because it's a sign of the growing acceptance of the genre.
Should work be sanitized for exhibition and display on livingroom walls or should it retain it's rough and raw nature?
|
|
gilsteph
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,434
Likes โข 300
September 2006
|
The role of urban art, by gilsteph on Dec 2, 2008 19:43:46 GMT 1, When I buy a picture its because I want to be able to look at and live with it for a long time. How sanitized or not is irrelevant to me. (I loved Cases C-section and had it been a little less to buy I would have happily had it in my house)
It should make you stop think and maybe even appreciate. Living with something is different than seeing something in the street. Most street work works best in the street IMO.
When I buy a picture its because I want to be able to look at and live with it for a long time. How sanitized or not is irrelevant to me. (I loved Cases C-section and had it been a little less to buy I would have happily had it in my house)
It should make you stop think and maybe even appreciate. Living with something is different than seeing something in the street. Most street work works best in the street IMO.
|
|
Gurn
New Member
Posts โข 894
Likes โข 904
August 2007
|
The role of urban art, by Gurn on Dec 2, 2008 19:52:51 GMT 1, Most of you have written about work on the street. Thankyou for your valuble contributions but what about the gallery/print collecting side of things? We can't deny that this aspect is increasingly important. Not least because it forms a source of income for the artists but also because it's a sign of the growing acceptance of the genre. Should work be sanitized for exhibition and display on livingroom walls or should it retain it's rough and raw nature?
From a buyers perspective,we all have different cut-off points when it comes to our shock or dipleasure at a piece,and whether it would go on our walls...From an atist point of view? I guess it really does depend on whether you want to make a point...or a living.
Most of you have written about work on the street. Thankyou for your valuble contributions but what about the gallery/print collecting side of things? We can't deny that this aspect is increasingly important. Not least because it forms a source of income for the artists but also because it's a sign of the growing acceptance of the genre. Should work be sanitized for exhibition and display on livingroom walls or should it retain it's rough and raw nature? From a buyers perspective,we all have different cut-off points when it comes to our shock or dipleasure at a piece,and whether it would go on our walls...From an atist point of view? I guess it really does depend on whether you want to make a point...or a living.
|
|
|
The role of urban art, by onemandown72 on Dec 2, 2008 19:58:08 GMT 1, Most of you have written about work on the street. Thankyou for your valuble contributions but what about the gallery/print collecting side of things? We can't deny that this aspect is increasingly important. Not least because it forms a source of income for the artists but also because it's a sign of the growing acceptance of the genre. Should work be sanitized for exhibition and display on livingroom walls or should it retain it's rough and raw nature?
I think that the issue you are discussing is a change in context, and the ability to retain the power of art when it is taken from the street and placed in a more "clean"environment. I see this as down to the artist, and 2 options here. 1. When exhibited ensure that the space used creates the right context, so the gallery space becomes integral to the work on display. Look at what has been done at the Banksy pet store recently, or with the JR show. It shouldn't be as simple as a white walled gallery. 2. If the space is to be a traditional gallery then this comes down to the ability of the artist to create work that can stand alone here - Parla / Neate at Elms Lester
Most of you have written about work on the street. Thankyou for your valuble contributions but what about the gallery/print collecting side of things? We can't deny that this aspect is increasingly important. Not least because it forms a source of income for the artists but also because it's a sign of the growing acceptance of the genre. Should work be sanitized for exhibition and display on livingroom walls or should it retain it's rough and raw nature? I think that the issue you are discussing is a change in context, and the ability to retain the power of art when it is taken from the street and placed in a more "clean"environment. I see this as down to the artist, and 2 options here. 1. When exhibited ensure that the space used creates the right context, so the gallery space becomes integral to the work on display. Look at what has been done at the Banksy pet store recently, or with the JR show. It shouldn't be as simple as a white walled gallery. 2. If the space is to be a traditional gallery then this comes down to the ability of the artist to create work that can stand alone here - Parla / Neate at Elms Lester
|
|
|
The role of urban art, by crazyarsemother on Dec 2, 2008 20:29:46 GMT 1, I think itโs a little naive to talk in a way of โthem and usโ when referencing the 'traditional' art scene. There is no such thing. There can only be what has gone before. Art has progressed in fascinating ways in the last 500 years. Many of the movements of the last 110 years where reactions to what had gone before and I can think of countless political and 'gritty' works of art that have perhaps caused more of a reaction or response than works produced in the last decade. Joseph Beuys 'I Like America and American Likes Me 1974' springs to mind as one of a thousand.
Should Urban Art have a role that is any different from any other art 'movement' other than to offer a means of expression for the artist? Things change and evolve. Why should an artist who pushes the boundaries of the viewerโs political thinking be any less a significant artist as one that pushes the boundaries of their expressive material, as long as both practise with equal integrity?
No scene stays the same and why not celebrate that rather than try and be prescriptive with our aesthetic judgement? I sometimes wonder if an art movement that champions its renegade heroes has not become as insular, elitist and regressive in its thinking as the so called 'establishment' it was reacting to. Maybe that is inevitable and maybe that is positive and give birth to a new direction.
Anyway, I shall shut up. Good thread though Mike and it was nice to meet you the other night at Babylon. Your paste up really kicked arse.
I think itโs a little naive to talk in a way of โthem and usโ when referencing the 'traditional' art scene. There is no such thing. There can only be what has gone before. Art has progressed in fascinating ways in the last 500 years. Many of the movements of the last 110 years where reactions to what had gone before and I can think of countless political and 'gritty' works of art that have perhaps caused more of a reaction or response than works produced in the last decade. Joseph Beuys 'I Like America and American Likes Me 1974' springs to mind as one of a thousand.
Should Urban Art have a role that is any different from any other art 'movement' other than to offer a means of expression for the artist? Things change and evolve. Why should an artist who pushes the boundaries of the viewerโs political thinking be any less a significant artist as one that pushes the boundaries of their expressive material, as long as both practise with equal integrity?
No scene stays the same and why not celebrate that rather than try and be prescriptive with our aesthetic judgement? I sometimes wonder if an art movement that champions its renegade heroes has not become as insular, elitist and regressive in its thinking as the so called 'establishment' it was reacting to. Maybe that is inevitable and maybe that is positive and give birth to a new direction.
Anyway, I shall shut up. Good thread though Mike and it was nice to meet you the other night at Babylon. Your paste up really kicked arse.
|
|
Heavyconsumer
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,974
Likes โข 5
February 2008
|
The role of urban art, by Heavyconsumer on Dec 2, 2008 21:03:20 GMT 1, Most of you have written about work on the street. Thankyou for your valuble contributions but what about the gallery/print collecting side of things? We can't deny that this aspect is increasingly important. Not least because it forms a source of income for the artists but also because it's a sign of the growing acceptance of the genre. Should work be sanitized for exhibition and display on livingroom walls or should it retain it's rough and raw nature?From a buyers perspective,we all have different cut-off points when it comes to our shock or dipleasure at a piece,and whether it would go on our walls...From an atist point of view? I guess it really does depend on whether you want to make a point...or a living.
Nice way to look at it Gurn.
Mike, I feel that the moment artists allow their work to become "sanitized," their integrity is being compromised. There's only one universal in this whole debate and that's "ART!" Why is street art street art? Simple answer is "because it's in the street" (part of the environment that we all walk through day to day and the most public of domains). We can talk about placement, audience, meaning etc etc, but ultimately, the guys who end up being exhibited in galleries and museums are those who's work becomes recognized as being of artistic merit (whatever that means to you or any other artist, collector, gallerist or curator), of great cultural relevance, or simply popular enough to be profitable.
However at the end of the day art in any form is still art. Why do artists create? I'd guess that it varies from one to the next, especially with so many artistic, commercial fields around today, but from the few artists I know and have met, I would suggest that art's driven by expression - if artists wanted to be wealthy, they'd have donned suits and blagged jobs with merchant banks. If an artist feels the need to express something and can stimulate a genuine reaction in someone else, that's art, whatever form it takes or medium is used. If punters find that reaction interesting or enjoyable, then I dare say a living can be made by that artist, but if the artist begins to water down (sanitize) the meaning or energy of the art (or probably more common is the urge to pander to the audiences demands to perpetuate commercial success once it's been achieved in some measure), can the purist in him/her, the artist within, ever be satisfied. What's the role of all art? If people have to call it street art or urban art or subversive art, to market it or hype it, let them, but to me it's all art. Whether on a wall, in a book or in a frame hanging in a gallery or someone's home.
Although this forum is bound, like any other, to have different people with different opinions and preferences, I feel it's very representative of the above, in that there are a great many arists discussed here regularly, who vary tremendously in terms of the nature of their work and their artistic backgrounds.
There have always been and will always be expressionists, who reflect their views of society through creating art, it's just that today, people are more liberal when it comes to what and where it needs to be, to qualify as "art."
(sorry for the length of my post)
Most of you have written about work on the street. Thankyou for your valuble contributions but what about the gallery/print collecting side of things? We can't deny that this aspect is increasingly important. Not least because it forms a source of income for the artists but also because it's a sign of the growing acceptance of the genre. Should work be sanitized for exhibition and display on livingroom walls or should it retain it's rough and raw nature?From a buyers perspective,we all have different cut-off points when it comes to our shock or dipleasure at a piece,and whether it would go on our walls...From an atist point of view? I guess it really does depend on whether you want to make a point...or a living. Nice way to look at it Gurn. Mike, I feel that the moment artists allow their work to become "sanitized," their integrity is being compromised. There's only one universal in this whole debate and that's "ART!" Why is street art street art? Simple answer is "because it's in the street" (part of the environment that we all walk through day to day and the most public of domains). We can talk about placement, audience, meaning etc etc, but ultimately, the guys who end up being exhibited in galleries and museums are those who's work becomes recognized as being of artistic merit (whatever that means to you or any other artist, collector, gallerist or curator), of great cultural relevance, or simply popular enough to be profitable. However at the end of the day art in any form is still art. Why do artists create? I'd guess that it varies from one to the next, especially with so many artistic, commercial fields around today, but from the few artists I know and have met, I would suggest that art's driven by expression - if artists wanted to be wealthy, they'd have donned suits and blagged jobs with merchant banks. If an artist feels the need to express something and can stimulate a genuine reaction in someone else, that's art, whatever form it takes or medium is used. If punters find that reaction interesting or enjoyable, then I dare say a living can be made by that artist, but if the artist begins to water down (sanitize) the meaning or energy of the art (or probably more common is the urge to pander to the audiences demands to perpetuate commercial success once it's been achieved in some measure), can the purist in him/her, the artist within, ever be satisfied. What's the role of all art? If people have to call it street art or urban art or subversive art, to market it or hype it, let them, but to me it's all art. Whether on a wall, in a book or in a frame hanging in a gallery or someone's home. Although this forum is bound, like any other, to have different people with different opinions and preferences, I feel it's very representative of the above, in that there are a great many arists discussed here regularly, who vary tremendously in terms of the nature of their work and their artistic backgrounds. There have always been and will always be expressionists, who reflect their views of society through creating art, it's just that today, people are more liberal when it comes to what and where it needs to be, to qualify as "art." (sorry for the length of my post)
|
|
|
Heavyconsumer
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,974
Likes โข 5
February 2008
|
The role of urban art, by Heavyconsumer on Dec 2, 2008 21:06:12 GMT 1, Damn it James, wish I'd read your post before writing mine, as it was obscelete before I finished typing it.
Damn it James, wish I'd read your post before writing mine, as it was obscelete before I finished typing it.
|
|
Mike Marcus
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 197
Likes โข 0
August 2008
|
The role of urban art, by Mike Marcus on Dec 2, 2008 21:07:01 GMT 1, I guess that there is a certain inevitibility to our institutionalization James. Anyone want to join the posturbanism movement? :-)
Incidentally "I like America and america likes me" has been (and still is) a major inflence in my "CS" work.
Nice to meet you too.
I guess that there is a certain inevitibility to our institutionalization James. Anyone want to join the posturbanism movement? :-)
Incidentally "I like America and america likes me" has been (and still is) a major inflence in my "CS" work.
Nice to meet you too.
|
|
Mike Marcus
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 197
Likes โข 0
August 2008
|
The role of urban art, by Mike Marcus on Dec 2, 2008 21:28:21 GMT 1, I think that heavyconsumer has reached the central point of the issue. Can urban art be commercialised and still retain its integrity?
With non-street art its a much more simple issue. I put my deepest and most sincere expression into my art because I want to communicate to the world what is closest to my heart. I need my non-street work to be a commercial success because if galleries don't exhibit it and journals don't publish it, it will remain obscure and unheard. A lone voice in an empty room.
However with street art its a different matter. For 4 or 5 years I have been able to communicate my various messages and emotions without the need for support from an art gallery, publisher or critic. The question remains. What further need do artists have of these institutions which would have provided me with a platform and a voice in the past.
The answer is money. Its not a dirty word and artists need it as much as everyone else. Without it I'm doing a full time job and thats 50 hours a week that I don't have to devote to art. So is there a balance to be struck? Can street artists become "urban" artists and keep their integrity intact?
A lot depends on the consumers of our output and how willing they are to step with the artists into unknown territory.
I think that heavyconsumer has reached the central point of the issue. Can urban art be commercialised and still retain its integrity?
With non-street art its a much more simple issue. I put my deepest and most sincere expression into my art because I want to communicate to the world what is closest to my heart. I need my non-street work to be a commercial success because if galleries don't exhibit it and journals don't publish it, it will remain obscure and unheard. A lone voice in an empty room.
However with street art its a different matter. For 4 or 5 years I have been able to communicate my various messages and emotions without the need for support from an art gallery, publisher or critic. The question remains. What further need do artists have of these institutions which would have provided me with a platform and a voice in the past.
The answer is money. Its not a dirty word and artists need it as much as everyone else. Without it I'm doing a full time job and thats 50 hours a week that I don't have to devote to art. So is there a balance to be struck? Can street artists become "urban" artists and keep their integrity intact?
A lot depends on the consumers of our output and how willing they are to step with the artists into unknown territory.
|
|
|
The role of urban art, by crazyarsemother on Dec 2, 2008 22:11:37 GMT 1, I have already started that movement - neo celebrationism. The world is a mixed up place but there is inspiration in the best of it. Thats what www.YESYOUCANISTAN.com is the all new anything goes in terms of visual cultural hybridity.
I have already started that movement - neo celebrationism. The world is a mixed up place but there is inspiration in the best of it. Thats what www.YESYOUCANISTAN.com is the all new anything goes in terms of visual cultural hybridity.
|
|
jamesreeve5
Blank Rank
Posts โข 0
Likes โข 0
September 2012
|
The role of urban art, by jamesreeve5 on Dec 2, 2008 22:15:10 GMT 1, The street art crowd (at least on this board) is a conservative bunch when it comes to art really. In fact, street art in general is a fairly conservative movement, working in traditional mediums or styles (printmaking, painting, and sculpture... 99% of it figurative), and not dealing with too controversial a subject in any of their works (government overstepping their grounds = BAD, out of control consumerism = BAD, poverty = BAD... these are pretty much universal agreements and artists have been dealing with them long before).
Beyond the illegality of painting on public places, there isn't really that much controversy surrounding street art, and/or urban art (except for its ballooning auction house prices).
The street art crowd (at least on this board) is a conservative bunch when it comes to art really. In fact, street art in general is a fairly conservative movement, working in traditional mediums or styles (printmaking, painting, and sculpture... 99% of it figurative), and not dealing with too controversial a subject in any of their works (government overstepping their grounds = BAD, out of control consumerism = BAD, poverty = BAD... these are pretty much universal agreements and artists have been dealing with them long before).
Beyond the illegality of painting on public places, there isn't really that much controversy surrounding street art, and/or urban art (except for its ballooning auction house prices).
|
|
jamesreeve5
Blank Rank
Posts โข 0
Likes โข 0
September 2012
|
The role of urban art, by jamesreeve5 on Dec 2, 2008 22:16:34 GMT 1, now bring on the disagreers...
now bring on the disagreers...
|
|
|
The role of urban art, by hero on Dec 2, 2008 22:20:08 GMT 1, street art is all about making the world a brighter place, turning a wall into something full of colour and pictures, the piece you are talking about was not that much urban art-i heard the story behind it-i like it, but don't think i would put it up in the house
graffiti is a universal language...it is present in every country you go to-a piece of work that is inspired by urban art is interesting
;D
H
street art is all about making the world a brighter place, turning a wall into something full of colour and pictures, the piece you are talking about was not that much urban art-i heard the story behind it-i like it, but don't think i would put it up in the house graffiti is a universal language...it is present in every country you go to-a piece of work that is inspired by urban art is interesting ;D H
|
|
Mike Marcus
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 197
Likes โข 0
August 2008
|
The role of urban art, by Mike Marcus on Dec 2, 2008 22:28:38 GMT 1, Hero - I dont agree that street art is always about making the world a brighter place. WK, JR, Banksy (until recently) allways use black and white.
Many artists intentionally use the medium to sidestep the gallery system. And others find that it enhances their personal relationship with urban space. For me it was the only way to criticise the occupation of Palestine because Tel Aviv galleries wouldn't go anywhere near such a contentious issue when they could just exhibit landscapes.
Hero - I dont agree that street art is always about making the world a brighter place. WK, JR, Banksy (until recently) allways use black and white.
Many artists intentionally use the medium to sidestep the gallery system. And others find that it enhances their personal relationship with urban space. For me it was the only way to criticise the occupation of Palestine because Tel Aviv galleries wouldn't go anywhere near such a contentious issue when they could just exhibit landscapes.
|
|
|
baznyc
New Member
Posts โข 187
Likes โข 0
October 2008
|
The role of urban art, by baznyc on Dec 2, 2008 22:42:29 GMT 1, street art is all about making the world a brighter place, turning a wall into something full of colour and pictures, the piece you are talking about was not that much urban art-i heard the story behind it-i like it, but don't think i would put it up in the house graffiti is a universal language...it is present in every country you go to-a piece of work that is inspired by urban art is interesting ;D H
What about the work that is intended to remind you that the world isn't a brighter place? (NOLA) Banksy is a perfect example of getting this across. Also what about the street art that does little more than mark territory?
What I'm gently saying is your post is bollocks.
No offence though.
street art is all about making the world a brighter place, turning a wall into something full of colour and pictures, the piece you are talking about was not that much urban art-i heard the story behind it-i like it, but don't think i would put it up in the house graffiti is a universal language...it is present in every country you go to-a piece of work that is inspired by urban art is interesting ;D H What about the work that is intended to remind you that the world isn't a brighter place? (NOLA) Banksy is a perfect example of getting this across. Also what about the street art that does little more than mark territory? What I'm gently saying is your post is bollocks. No offence though.
|
|
|
The role of urban art, by hero on Dec 2, 2008 22:56:35 GMT 1, i dont mean bright as in
but if you have some wall, you can liven it up (word i probably should have used)
each one then becomes a way of showing a point of view-the black and white is a very recognizable way of getting an image across...but its come a lot further now
H
i dont mean bright as in but if you have some wall, you can liven it up (word i probably should have used) each one then becomes a way of showing a point of view-the black and white is a very recognizable way of getting an image across...but its come a lot further now H
|
|
Mike Marcus
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 197
Likes โข 0
August 2008
|
The role of urban art, by Mike Marcus on Dec 2, 2008 23:03:03 GMT 1, Personally i think that some of the best street art is that which expresses melancholy: Herakut, Know Hope to name a couple.
Personally i think that some of the best street art is that which expresses melancholy: Herakut, Know Hope to name a couple.
|
|
colonelkurtz
New Member
Posts โข 284
Likes โข 1
January 2008
|
The role of urban art, by colonelkurtz on Dec 2, 2008 23:07:55 GMT 1, All generalisations are dangerous, even this one.
Art is freedom, the streets are freedom, political art is a pimple on the art world that viewers pay as much attention to as a tramp on the street.
If that tramp paints something beautiful he is celebrated, if he writes "stop ignoring me", most people will only ignore him more.
However, if he can write the same message in italic text, an artist is born.
I don't think you can question the motives behind art, when the art itself does not have an alterea motive (except the artists enjoyment and feelings of belonging) . It's the viewer that makes these decisions you question, so you might as well study the world.
There is no continous motive in the street art scene.
Apart from avoiding the snobbish bullshit from people who want to define and explain in words something that can only be shown in pictures.
All generalisations are dangerous, even this one.
Art is freedom, the streets are freedom, political art is a pimple on the art world that viewers pay as much attention to as a tramp on the street.
If that tramp paints something beautiful he is celebrated, if he writes "stop ignoring me", most people will only ignore him more.
However, if he can write the same message in italic text, an artist is born.
I don't think you can question the motives behind art, when the art itself does not have an alterea motive (except the artists enjoyment and feelings of belonging) . It's the viewer that makes these decisions you question, so you might as well study the world.
There is no continous motive in the street art scene.
Apart from avoiding the snobbish bullshit from people who want to define and explain in words something that can only be shown in pictures.
|
|
baznyc
New Member
Posts โข 187
Likes โข 0
October 2008
|
The role of urban art, by baznyc on Dec 2, 2008 23:18:16 GMT 1, i dont mean bright as in i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/mikebarlow/Rave-1.jpgbut if you have some wall, you can liven it up (word i probably should have used) each one then becomes a way of showing a point of view-the black and white is a very recognizable way of getting an image across...but its come a lot further now H
Hey Hero,
Sorry, when you said street art is all about making the world a brighter place, turning a wall into something full of colour and pictures, in your earlier post I thought you meant street art was all about turning a wall into something full of colour and pictures.
My mistake.
i dont mean bright as in i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/mikebarlow/Rave-1.jpgbut if you have some wall, you can liven it up (word i probably should have used) each one then becomes a way of showing a point of view-the black and white is a very recognizable way of getting an image across...but its come a lot further now H Hey Hero, Sorry, when you said street art is all about making the world a brighter place, turning a wall into something full of colour and pictures, in your earlier post I thought you meant street art was all about turning a wall into something full of colour and pictures. My mistake.
|
|
|
The role of urban art, by onemandown72 on Dec 3, 2008 0:11:54 GMT 1, For me, as I suspect many Street art (as with all good art) has thrived on it's ability to make you stop and think, laugh, question. It evokes an emotive response. Be that a chuckle at a throwaway remark or drawing such as a smiley face on the green section of a traffic light, or something more poignant via a physical sculpture (I walked past a white bike yesterday, left in London as a memorial to a cyclist's death). Both brightened my day, as both used art to convey a message. Street art for me is the ultimate environment as it is a blank canvas where anyone can work, regardless of talent, background or education. This is what allows street art to stand apart from the more conventional art world. There are no rules, you can write what you want where, and this makes it not only incredibly democratic, but also incredibly diverse. Mike I respect your desire to question all of above, but I think you're too worried about street art's relevnce or authority within more conventional art circles. For me Banksy has continued to bridge that gap. There will always be conflict between the art establishment and new movements, that is human nature.
For me, as I suspect many Street art (as with all good art) has thrived on it's ability to make you stop and think, laugh, question. It evokes an emotive response. Be that a chuckle at a throwaway remark or drawing such as a smiley face on the green section of a traffic light, or something more poignant via a physical sculpture (I walked past a white bike yesterday, left in London as a memorial to a cyclist's death). Both brightened my day, as both used art to convey a message. Street art for me is the ultimate environment as it is a blank canvas where anyone can work, regardless of talent, background or education. This is what allows street art to stand apart from the more conventional art world. There are no rules, you can write what you want where, and this makes it not only incredibly democratic, but also incredibly diverse. Mike I respect your desire to question all of above, but I think you're too worried about street art's relevnce or authority within more conventional art circles. For me Banksy has continued to bridge that gap. There will always be conflict between the art establishment and new movements, that is human nature.
|
|
sfdoddsy
New Member
Posts โข 267
Likes โข 0
August 2008
|
The role of urban art, by sfdoddsy on Dec 3, 2008 0:30:40 GMT 1, 1) The established art world is notorious for promoting 'safe' art.
I'm afraid I would challenge your initial premise. The established art world is far less conservative than the street/urban world.
Grafitti tends to look the same the world over, with everyone imitating the original US scene. Now it is simple political stencils with pictures of monkeys. Or slightly distorted figurative work such as Neate and Herakut. Or yet another tiresome homage/rip of Warhol.
People on this forum buy essentially the same pieces over and over again, and yet think they are being rebels. They are not. They are showing precisely the same level of taste as those who used to buy Norman Rockwell prints to hang over the fire.
That's why the art world looks down on urban art. It's not because they are scared of its politics. They just don't think it is any good.
1) The established art world is notorious for promoting 'safe' art. I'm afraid I would challenge your initial premise. The established art world is far less conservative than the street/urban world. Grafitti tends to look the same the world over, with everyone imitating the original US scene. Now it is simple political stencils with pictures of monkeys. Or slightly distorted figurative work such as Neate and Herakut. Or yet another tiresome homage/rip of Warhol. People on this forum buy essentially the same pieces over and over again, and yet think they are being rebels. They are not. They are showing precisely the same level of taste as those who used to buy Norman Rockwell prints to hang over the fire. That's why the art world looks down on urban art. It's not because they are scared of its politics. They just don't think it is any good.
|
|
Mike Marcus
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 197
Likes โข 0
August 2008
|
The role of urban art, by Mike Marcus on Dec 3, 2008 0:56:00 GMT 1, I agree most of your post sfdoddsy which is why I am posing my original questions. However I would draw a very strong distinction between street art and graffiti. I know that this is a radical theory but I don't even believe that they came from the same root. I consider graffiti to have come out of abstract expressionism (nihilistic, introverted, macho and concerned with spontaneity) whereas street art (popularist, utilising recycling imagery and concerned with consumerism and celebrity) clearly derives from pop.
The only similarity between the two movements (bring on the flames if you will) is that we share a common canvas. We call them vandals, they call us art fags. There is a rift between the two communities and its starting to grow.
I think however that there is cream in the street art movement (thats where I hope and try to be). I have confidence that in due time it will rise to the top. I consider Know Hope to be one of those artists who is going out there and doing his thing with a blatant disregard for what everyone else is doing.
I agree most of your post sfdoddsy which is why I am posing my original questions. However I would draw a very strong distinction between street art and graffiti. I know that this is a radical theory but I don't even believe that they came from the same root. I consider graffiti to have come out of abstract expressionism (nihilistic, introverted, macho and concerned with spontaneity) whereas street art (popularist, utilising recycling imagery and concerned with consumerism and celebrity) clearly derives from pop.
The only similarity between the two movements (bring on the flames if you will) is that we share a common canvas. We call them vandals, they call us art fags. There is a rift between the two communities and its starting to grow.
I think however that there is cream in the street art movement (thats where I hope and try to be). I have confidence that in due time it will rise to the top. I consider Know Hope to be one of those artists who is going out there and doing his thing with a blatant disregard for what everyone else is doing.
|
|