This is a photograph taken along the St. Louis riverfront in June of 2008. Do you consider this graffiti to be aesthetically pleasing? (Aesthetically means of or concerning the appreciation of beauty and good taste.) Do you consider this graffiti (and by extension, the photograph) to be art? Why or why not?Friday, July 11, 2008
Is it Art?
This is a photograph taken along the St. Louis riverfront in June of 2008. Do you consider this graffiti to be aesthetically pleasing? (Aesthetically means of or concerning the appreciation of beauty and good taste.) Do you consider this graffiti (and by extension, the photograph) to be art? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
In short, yes, I believe this to be art. But if art is simply defined as something one finds aesthetically pleasing then Christian Bale is art, in my mind. And there are certain things others consider art and I don't find aesthetically pleasing at all. Case and point, Jackson Pollock. His paintings are neat. They're creative and innovative, but I don't find them aesthetically pleasing.
In my opinion, art is a physical representation of someone's emotional experience. It leaves room for ugliness and flaws. As someone who considers herself an artist of sorts, this definition covers all types of art. Music, writing, painting, acting, film-making, photography, anything. How can you diminish someone's efforts to create something beautiful simply because it's on the side of a building instead of on a canvas?
I would have to say that graffiti is art. It can be a beautiful or horrific expression of the person who created it. Not to mention that just creating it can be a hassle. They could be arrested for spray painting their message against a wall.
Art shouldn't just be defined as 'aesthetically pleasing.' It should be defined as what pleases you, the viewer. And I personally, find this graffiti to be pleasing, thus, to me, it is art.
Who determines what is art? One person may feel that this graffiti is vandalism whereas, in my opinion, I feel is a freedom of expression. This is a freedom that each and every one of us possess, but how we use it can affect those around us. I believe that the graffiti shown in the picture is a form of art to those willing to accept it. I guess you could sum up what I am trying to say with "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Who am I to determine whether or not this is art? I think that's for the artist to say. Even if it is just a simple word scribbled across a building, what right do we have to say if it is a piece of art? I guess to sum it all up, I do believe this is art, but to me everything created from mankind to God is art.
I'm Ms. Coleman's teacher friend and I love this kind of question but since we're about to start school (we don't start till after Labor Day -- sorry!) and I start my AP lit class with a similar question, I'll just put my 2 cents in here. Art (a lot like poetry) is designated such by the artist and the viewer either agrees or dismisses it. We can all agree that the traditional masters are technically proficient but we may not really enjoy looking at their work that much. A lot of modern art and folk art (which I'd probably classify grafitti as) is a little trickier. I personally would add that there has to be an edifiying message -- something that teaches us or expresses our experience in some way.
I'm getting a little off track but back to my own AP classes' opening discussion which is whether or not there is such a thing as a wrong opinion. A lot of the discussion here centers on the individual's opinion. I agree, but I also believe there is such a thing as a wrong opinion, or a well or poorly supported opinion. An informed vs. an uninformed opinion.
As for the grafitti -- I consider it art because it takes some technical virtuosity and in this case is fairly appealing to the senses. As far as its legality or illegality, it's hard to say how that affects it as art. Objectively, I guess it shouldn't but I think also that the context in which something is produced can affect its meaning if we are aware of it. Also the artist's intent is important. Is he or she vandalizing someone else's property or attempting to beautify an area? Or maybe providing a contrast so that we notice an area's blight, etc., etc.
In reference to readsalot44 and I, Cassandra: I'm curious as to why you find this grafitti pleasing? Colors? Arrangement? Medium? The fact that grafitti, though more accepted by the mainstream than it ever was, is still often considered rebellious? I think that one of the distinguishing characteristics of art is that it somehow "shocks" or at the very least, prods viewers/readers into an awareness that we previously lacked. Does this grafitti do that in any way? I believe it does by virtue of where it is located (a deserted building on the St. Louis Riverfront) and my knowledge of the risks the artists took to paint. That's where illegality could come into play. When you start talking about WHY an artist risks being jailed to create his or her work, or WHY an artist chooses a medium that is risky to his/her welfare, you can't help but become more aware of what the established norms are and why people are motivated to break/change them.
Art: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
Apparently to all the stiffs who decide what the definitions in the dictionary are, to them, that defines what art really is. To others though, many others, art can be anything. To put it simply, if you think its art, it is. Art is something you feel is of significance. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". That is one of few truths in life. It can really be applied to anything that "you" want. If you want to call this art, then it is, if you don't than it isn't. I don't know why so many people care about what the nameless, faceless "elected" representatives of the populaces opinion really think. Do we and when I say we I mean anyone and everyone that cares enough, get a say in the definitions? No, or at least I nor anyone I know didn't. So I'm not going to worry about what somebody else definition of art is. To me, it is an expression of an artists feelings or concerns, it is anything that is appealing to the eyes, it is anything that I feel of significance, it is nature, it is anything, it is everything. To me, when I try to take in those little things that not a lot of people ever seem to notice. A puddle created after a storm, or perhaps a tree struck down by that lightning you had heard as thunder the previous night. Things that even though happen quite often, if observed in all its entirety can really provoke some deep emotions and though. That to me is what art is really about. So in summation, to answer the real question at hand, yes I do think that this wall is art. The people that did this, for whatever reason, where hit by a fit of passion in which they wanted to express to the world. If even just to feel known, to represent yourself, that passion or any emotion that drives you to the point of intense expression can really be considered art.
Post a Comment