Graffitigreenspun.com : LUSENET : Public Art : One Thread
Can graffiti be considered public art, why and why not.
-- Shannon gilbert (email@example.com), December 09, 1999
Why?, its is a reflection of a part of society, the realisms are real and still an ongoing thing, back in the 80's it was considered as vandalism, then the media decided to sesationalize it, people who once turned their nose up at it were now jumping on the band-wagon, so like any public art an element of contraversy plays a part which in the end works as a vechicle (sadly) to make some intellectual twats rich. But alas the real people who created this ART FORM are now getting credi where credits due and more importantly developing it on new levels or a broader scale. Communities are now excepting it as part of there society, Poetic justice reveals its head in the end. ART FOR THE PEOPLE Shannon gilbert....Why not?.......Why not.....Depuma
-- david grant (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 22, 2000.
art is, in most forms, subjective. the ability to see something as art is therefor in itself subjective. i read about an individual who paints small "belt buckle" sized landscapes on the walls of public buildings. she has never been harrased for her work, nor criticised in any depth. the reason no one bothers her is because her work is "good" or "with talent" or within "reasonable" proportion. the problem is, all of these things are also subjective. i can't say i condone the defacing of public property, but that doesn't mean what's put up is not art, and it is most certainly in the public. so, in my eyes, the contraversy should not be over whether or not it is public art, it should be whether or not this particular public art is moral and allowable.
we could make many suggestions as to how to fix this "problem" or make most parties happy. but doesn't that in its' self change the impact or meaning of the art? and therefor is it not wrong and a supression of out freedom of speach?
-- matt tower (email@example.com), November 06, 2001.