Sunday, August 31, 2008
Is it art?
In my opinion art is something aesthetically pleasing made based on your own personal feeling or experiences. So, yes, it is art. The type of of material that you use to make or make it upon has nothing to do with whether or not it is art. Personally, I like to see some skill involved in art, which this particular type of art has, thats why I don't consider myself an artist or anything I have created art.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Is it Art?
I think whether or not its graffiti or not the artist was being very creative in his/her own mindset. It does depend on who is looking at the piece and deciding for themselves what they think. However, in a general definition of art, I myself (the stallion) would say that it is art because the artist is taking it into another level. I mean this because they didnt just make it simple to mark a territory. But in a way they could tell the audience "Hey, look how artistic I am." Another reason to show the veiwer how far they can go with there ability of art, and creativity...
Response...
Okay, Mrs. Coleman, you said in class that we should leave our responses in actual blog posts, so...I hope I'm doing this right.
Would it sound cheesy if I were to say that the definition of "art" is relative? I really think it depends on the viewer; I happen to find some graffiti aesthetically pleasing, but I do not think that means all graffiti is art. I think the real question here is: Where does graffiti cross the line between creative territory-marking and actual art?
Again, I think it depends on the viewer. To me, art serves a purpose: either it is pleasing to the eye, or it makes a point or tells a story. Does the word "poop" sprayed in white on a streetlight's pole fit this definition? I'd say no, and unless you are a DADAist, you probably agree. But does a full-color spray-paint landscape of the rocky mountains, which I once saw on a Wyoming train car, qualify? I believe so.
Another point to consider: The situation of those who are both 'formal' artists and graffiti artists. Keith Haring, for example, was a pop artist most famous for his graffiti on the walls of New York subway stations. Did the illegality of his medium lesson the merit of his artwork?
Back to the original question...the picture from the riverfront. Is that particular graffiti art? Perhaps it is...but it's not very good, is it?
Would it sound cheesy if I were to say that the definition of "art" is relative? I really think it depends on the viewer; I happen to find some graffiti aesthetically pleasing, but I do not think that means all graffiti is art. I think the real question here is: Where does graffiti cross the line between creative territory-marking and actual art?
Again, I think it depends on the viewer. To me, art serves a purpose: either it is pleasing to the eye, or it makes a point or tells a story. Does the word "poop" sprayed in white on a streetlight's pole fit this definition? I'd say no, and unless you are a DADAist, you probably agree. But does a full-color spray-paint landscape of the rocky mountains, which I once saw on a Wyoming train car, qualify? I believe so.
Another point to consider: The situation of those who are both 'formal' artists and graffiti artists. Keith Haring, for example, was a pop artist most famous for his graffiti on the walls of New York subway stations. Did the illegality of his medium lesson the merit of his artwork?
Back to the original question...the picture from the riverfront. Is that particular graffiti art? Perhaps it is...but it's not very good, is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)