The Embodiment of Destruction
Growing out of the graffiti
movement in the 1970’s Street Art has evolved over the past few decades and
risen to extreme popularity both within the art world and outside of it. The
reason for its popularity however is inherent in the place in which it was born
and is displayed, the street. Art of this nature can be found in every major
city spanning the globe and has become the object of much heated debate,
whether it is truly art or just vandalism. This question will be addressed as
well as the destructive nature of the art itself and the damaging nature of the
environment in which it’s seen.
 |
| Banksy, Nelson's Column, Trafalgar Square, London, England |
Street Art in and of
itself is a naturally destructive form of art. It almost always involves the
use of private owned structures in a public setting. This aids the notion that
it is indeed vandalism because, in fact, it is. However it is the goal of
Street Art to breathe life into what is normally boring and mundane city
scenery. To not only beautify the streets and walls onto which pieces are put
up but to awaken passersby out of, what is normally, their boring and mundane
lives by attacking their consciousness with unique works of art. And this is
exactly what it does. Street Art imposes the usually distant and remote world
of art onto the very real and tangible world of everyday life. In what is
viewed by the law as an act of destruction and vandalism, is viewed by many in
the public as art, however temporary in life and observation it may be.
Simultaneously, Street Art might destroy the façade of a building it creates
something of artistic and cultural value that is meant to be enjoyed or at the
very least contemplated.
Not only does
Street Art attack the consciousness of individuals as they proceed about their
daily business and destroy private property in the process, it attacks the
conventions of the modern art world and attempts to destroy them. Much like
what conceptual artists attempted to do throughout the fifties and sixties,
street artists were able to take this attack a step further. When one thinks of
art it brings to mind museums and galleries where art becomes an untouchable
entity that you must pay to take part in and carries a very elitist and
pretentious air. Art that is made in the streets breaks down these conceptions
of art and brings the gallery literally to the public. A person no longer has
to pay admission to a museum to view art and contemplate its meaning and
complexities they simply have to step out of their front door. Although Street
Art is now being bought, sold, and displayed in museums and galleries
throughout the world the pieces that are shown lack the meaning and depth that
they would have if they had stayed in their natural habitat. Philosopher
Nicolas Alden Riggle expresses this idea thoroughly saying, “By pulling them from the streets the curator
eliminates their material use of the street, thereby destroying their meaning
and status as street art. What is exhibited in the museum is at most a vestige
of street art.”
 |
| Space Invader, Los Angeles, CA (2007) |
Destruction is a central component
of what makes Street Art what it is, from the destruction of property to the
destruction of the conceptions of what makes art art. This nature of
destruction extends into the very environment which Street Art is found and
that is nature itself, in a metropolitan sense of the word. All street artists
recognize the ephemerality of their work when they create it, even if some
intend it to persevere longer than others. By placing artwork in a public
setting, especially when the legality is questionable, artists are subjecting
it to the elements of wind, rain, and corrosion, not to mention other
individuals who may choose to abolish the piece altogether. Often is the case
where those that deface a work of street art are other street artists
themselves. This lends itself to the idea that street art is an ever changing
ever evolving art form living its brief existence on walls and public
structures in fleeting moments just as shortly as it exists in your field of
vision but, not necessarily your mind. Of course street art pieces are
remembered and memorialized in photos and videos yet the effect of each work is
diminished as it is stripped of its true context.
 |
| MOMO, part of Manhattan Tag, NYC, (2006) |
The lives of street art works, from initial inception to the time
it is eventually washed away by nature or deliberately covered by another, is
surrounded by the essence of destruction. Whether it is the damaging effects of
nature or the dismantling of standing art world ideology Street Art operates
and thrives on the concept of creation through destruction and is appreciated
by the critics and public alike whom are lucky enough to witness it in its most
natural and purest form, in the streets.
Tyler
C. Jacobs
Sources:
1. Riggle, Nicolas Alden. “Street Art the
Transfiguration of the Commonplaces.” The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 68.3 (2010): 243-257. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Feb.
2013.
2.
Gaddy,
James. “Nowhere Man.” Print 61.1
(2007): 68-73. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
3.
El
Rashidi, Yasmine. “Art or Vandalism?.” Index
on Censorship 40.3 (2011):78-88. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
4. Anderson, Sam. “The Vandalism Vandal.” New York 40.20 (2007): 32-108. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Feb.
2013.
I really enjoyed reading this entry. My initial thought was what exactly draws the line between graffiti and street art though? Some would look at either and consider it all vandalism. But street art literally has the word art in it, constituting a higher value to the work. According to conventions, this work or street art is iconoclastic in and of itself, but I love the fact that you pointed out that the destruction of it is iconoclastic as well. The destruction you mentioned is also in an attempt to memorialize it by putting it in museums. As you stated though, this takes away its meaning and the definition of it actually being in the street. I find that point very interesting, this art is unmistakably locational art, most art is museums can be taken from place to place and be shown over and over, whereas this art is completely dependent upon where it is done. The point you made about its ephemerality is brilliant. This art will naturally be destroyed if people don't get to it first.
ReplyDeleteI also initially thought what is the difference between street art and graffiti. Initially I just assumed it was only because street art that has been adopted in art shows are generally are of higher quality or are just 'better' pieces of work because they may look better. I began to think what the difference may really be because I'm sure many pieces of street art and graffiti share the same intentions in sharing a meaning with the viewer in passing, maybe excluding tags or something like that. I also understand that the street art is intended to be seen in the public and not galleries, but I also think that the work does not lose all of its meaning just because of its intentions for the public. I feel like a message is still being presented while the work is in a gallery. How specifically does the work lose its meaning when it is no longer in the street and in a gallery? Isn't it being viewed similarly in both the public and private by viewers with slightly different mindsets?
ReplyDelete-Shawn Moore
I really enjoyed reading this post because I was able to relate it directly the the blog I made on art through destruction. While reading about the artist I struggled with how to define the relationship between street art and art is a gallery. I really like that you differentiated between the two through the use of time. I really like how you refer to street art as an "attack on the consciousness of individuals" and how it disrupts our expectations of the structure in our everyday lives. Part of the reason the artist I talked about switched to more permanent methods of graffiti was because he didnt want people to be able to mask or destroy his work. But after reading this post I realize that this is a very important aspect of street art and it sort of defines it. Its destruction is an important part of the works creating because the artist knows what will eventually happen to the work and it may not be there forever but change through the infringement of time.
ReplyDelete