Urban Art Association

Perhaps the parallel to your analogy would be watching a thought provoking (and bleak) film over and over again. I guess I'm getting at two points here. One, art doesn't really change the world. Two, I wouldn't want to have it up in my house. Fantastic in short bursts, like I say, incredibly clever, but not something I can enjoy for prolonged periods of time.

No is probably the short answer.

Political art on the whole sells/reaches those who agree with the sentiments to begin with - and that includes me. In "street art" if you agree with the sentiments/politics its art - if you don't then its vandalism. Prints/canvas whatever - if it reaches you then you were that inclined to begin with. The odd bit provokes thought - but it won't change the world. That doesn't in itself make it pointless - someone has to flag an alternative take on the world - but its not going to change much. Equally I'm a cynical old sod

As to what hangs in your home - well I've always viewed art as that I can look at/enjoy (which does include political art) and that which is "great/good/worthwhile" but I wouldn't want to wake up to or have hanging in the house. There's old school religious art which is great art - but trust me you don't want to wake up to a crucifixion. 

In my house - the "political" art with one exception hangs in the hall - its powerful - I get the joke - but nope not waking up to it and not having it being meaningful whilst I'm watching telly or eating - so shallow and cynical.

If you've the reach of Banksy then maybe you make a few people think - but compared to the press its an ant opposing an elephant

Hard to measure. You'll never know what effect an individual piece of art will have on a person or their attitude.

I know that personally, I've changed my thinking due to a few pieces of art that I've seen over the years, and have been intrigued enough to examine something in further depth or detail, do some research, etc.

In short, I think people change the world. That and super volcanoes or lumps of rock from space. Art might not in itself be able to change the world, but it can change people. And people can change the world.

And let's not forget that people make the art that can change people, that can then change the world.

A print or a painting will never feed or clothe the poor, save wildlife, remove toxins from the soil, but maybe it can be an exchange of thoughts, an idea or a message? People might not care to read a text book or an environmental report, but they might listen to an image. A brief image that, if we're lucky, will stir something in them that drives them to learn and care about the wider world around them.

Forgive me if I'm talking s**t.

Good thread by the way Pahnl.

I personally feel that there is a blur, or rather a lack of understanding, as to where Environmental and Land Art ends, and where Street Art begins.
I appreciate that academically, these are viewed as entirely separate movements. I accept that this is due for very obvious reasons.
For example, the historical time difference in which each has come to academic attention. Street Art easily being viewed as later.
There is a difference in use of materials. These tend to come directly from the landscape, in the case of Land/Environmental Art, although there are possibly exceptions.
Whilst Street Art and Land/Environmental Art seem destined to remain separately categorised, this has not entirely been my own personal experience, and would seem to clearly not always be the case.
I’ve encountered the word ‘trajectory’ a few times recently, in respect of Art History, and it’s quite a word to conjure with. It’s a term that can easily be applied to our own personal histories, which street art is part and parcel of.
I write this in the light of movements such as Reclaim The Streets, Food Not Lawns, and the actions that took place at Claremont Road, Leytonstone, London, in the early 1990’s, which were not so long ago.
Unfortunately, I feel that Urban art is viewed as exactly what it says on the tin. The word ‘urban’ implying a separation from nature, when we are all part of it, when everything we are and have is of it.
I believe that individually and collectively, gardeners/horticulturalists, street, and urban artists, have the capacity to bridge that gap. Whilst being faithful to the trajectories of our own individual histories, and the many headed Hydra that is art.



This garden is one of a number that I have made. It is well stocked with nectar rich plants. At present I still live here, and everyday watch butterflies, moths, birds, bats and bees.
Art does change the world for the better; the work of certain artists changed my perspective growing up. If it were not for an interest in art, including of the environmental and horticultural kind, I would not have created all that I have, and do.
Art can give you the vision, skills, and determination to create an oasis, for all forms of life, including human.

Sorry for the rant, I felt it was important to give your question full consideration.

Art can be a catalyst for change just as can a gun or money or my witty sense of humour but when art is viewed and absorbed wether you are a President or a house husband its effects can be profound.

It not only can, but does. It comes before Politics & Language. It's based on colour and light and by it's very nature, change. Can it open a single persons mind and heart to the universals in life, love, loss, eternity, existential angst, joy. Does it have the power to alter the course of an individuals life ? Can a prison "art workshop" unleash the huge creative potential within someone ? Can a council estate kids acceptance to an art course change the path of his or her life ? his or her's eventual family, can it break the chain of poverty and ignorance and awaken someone to realising theres more to life than consumerism, materialism, two weeks at the coast and spoon fed nationalist propaganda ? Can it save lives and influence the course of history ?

Absofuckinglutely !

Art has been used by the Church etc to indoctrinate people who could not read or write.

Powerful imagery, of big beardy gods and billowey robes decorated churches. OIl paintings, stone and wood carvings etc.

Combined with sermons, a way of brainwashing and controlling peoples minds.

Now we have television, moving art and such media which combies visual pleasure with subliminal messaging.

Only just now found some spare time to reply, seeing as I asked the question.

My original statement should've been 'I don't believe political art has an impact on the subjects it targets'. Art as a whole has all sorts of impact on people and culture but I feel the role of political art is overplayed. Change in that arena comes from people and direct action but then of course what has inspired them to bring about change? Possibly art, hard to say. Chicken and egg paradox in a way.

Yeah, I mean I guess it's at what at point you set the threshold for change. I absolutely agree that FAKE, art has definitely changed my life for the better. I've met people and gone places I'd have never had the opportunity of otherwise.