Urban Art Association

I know these are ridiculous and too cute, but..., by Heavyconsumer on Mar 15, 2008 4:02:43 GMT 1, 2 points, 1st, personally I have no problem with someone throwing something totally different into the mix. I feel it can't hurt and so long as people aren't too offended, we all have the choice whether we read beyond the initial post, while I do admit this a little bit "out there" on a tangent. By the way they look like toddlers' toys are we supposed to chew and destroy them or look at them?

More to the point many are making though, is where is the line to be drawn between what is and isn't worthy of the tag "street/urban art"?? Because what people are now referring to as Urban is becoming increasingly diversified from art found on walls and in public places for general viewing, which I guess is what many people here mean by "street art". Do prints qualify only when they are produced by "street artists?" Or perhaps when they are in keeping with that artist's street theme?

Artists like Micallef, Dface, Neate, to name a few, have produced a great deal of work of late, which in my mind's eye is anything but "street". Dface's busts and sculptures and giant Dollars, Micallef's sculptures at Laz for 20 odd grand each don't look very street either and some of Neate's gallery work would not look out of place hanging in Le Louvre! So do these works qualify? If so why not other similar works by artists lesser known for their street work? My view is it's all contemporary modern art.

I can only speak for myself. But in the short time I've read these pages (6 months or so), I've learned a lot about both artists that I know you guys would happily natter on about for ever, as well as some really wonderful talents brought to us by forum members, looking to "share the wealth". I hope that this continues, whether it be on the main page or on a seperate page. I would prefer less focus on definition and more on appreciation, but that's just my view and I appear to represent a vast minority!

Peace!