Last week a group of 30 Pixadores stormed the Choque Cultural Gallery in protest against the "marketing, institutionalization and domestication of Street Art" by the galleries and media. Paintings by Gerald Laing, Speto, Titi Freak and others were tagged by the Pixadores. A bit of an interesting discussion.. At first I thought it was an intentional art installation.
Interesting action. It shows that they stand up for what they believe, which can be admirable. On the other hand, they are defacing works of art in a gallery simply because they disagree with the way those artists go about promoting their work...I mean, really, who are they to decide what is right and wrong when it comes to being an artist?
ReplyDeleteEven if they feel that someone else's art or way of dealing with art is less valid, it does not give them the right to deface the work. It's not as though they went and painted well thought out/interesting pieces over the other people's art, it's just crude tagging and sentences written in spray paint. Seems wack and not well thought out...I mean, who gave them the moral high ground? Just thinking of a name (The Pixadores) and claiming to start a revolution definitely doesn't give them any credibility in my book if their actions don't seem morally or intellectually correct.
As far as whether or not street art should actually be marketed, institutionalized, or domesticated...I'm with Jeremy Fish. Check my next post for details.
i agree 100%.
ReplyDeletebut it is interesting how they are defacing art and culture that is about defacing art and culture and even worse attempting to sell it for monetary gain.
Wait...why is it worse to sell it for monetary gain? I doubt that most of the street artists that I enjoy would say that their work is intended solely to "deface art and culture."
ReplyDeletebecause marketing and monetary exchange essentially encourages some sort of an economy and establishment.
ReplyDeleteIm not talking about all street art mostly just graffiti...
wheres everyone else i want them to get in on this discussion.
haahha we're here matt. I do agree with josh's original statement. they are definitely making a statement about a very controversial subject. I actually thought about this when I went to that gallery in the city and saw the 'street art' show. Very well know artists (posted photos previously) and their work was clearly presented within the context of fine art. Honestly, it bothered me. But in thinking about, bottom line, these were pieces of art. Very few of them focused on the 'street' or were about political/cultural/social commentary. So the artists themselves are also taking hold of the hype around street art and are riding it to success. Which one could say a lot about... I
ReplyDeletets really complicated. Is street art, art that is inspired by the street, seen in the street, about street life, contrasting the street to other parts of society, etc??? What the fuck is the street?!! To impose your definition of such as completely definitive seems completely contradictory to the idea of a 'free' art form. The problem I have with the Pixadores (?) approach is they immediately chose to use hostility. This is not a black and white issue and they left no room for dialogue which first of all means their statement will never have a significant, lasting impact. Second, they are defining the art form and personally I always saw the beauty of 'street art' (whatever fucking form) as creating a direct narrative between the artist and the individual, without a predefined context about the artists intent. A real statement would have been to go in and used all the free space to create pieces that interacted with the gallery and existing art. You create a contrast between your definition and other one, haven't destroyed someone's work and pissed them off, and have actually enhanced the environment while making your fucking statement!! Which is my definition of street art.
once again i agree whole-heartedly but im going to attempt to keep this going simply because i like the dialogue. if it had been my art i would be fucking pist off. but i think there is something almost poetic about using graffiti to deface other graffiti that is in a sense selling out.
ReplyDeletethe purpose of street art as you said jake is to create an interesting dialogue between an innocent bystander walking the block and their often boring and plain environment. while graffiti on the other hand has a bit more of a direct illegal/destructive/anti establishment goal. to be completely honest i cant really see the paintings above to make out if they are truly st. art or graff. so this distinction becomes a bit more theoretical.
i also agree that it is highly disrespectful and almost unethical to destroy someone else's art work. but at the same time when things are posted on the street it is that lack of permanence that makes them so special. you know that that piece is not going to survive more than a few years. either because of weather, other writers, or the infamous BUFF. and to take that same theory and apply it to street art that is in a sense domesticated i think is hilarious.
ps i wish i could see more than 5 lines of this text at a time. but i guess were a bit more verbose than most of these blogging fools.
pps. they were all framed anyway so its not like they were really destroyed.
ya i was thinking about the frames too. changes it a bit. i wish the active artist of this blog would comment on, "while graffiti on the other hand has a bit more of a direct illegal/destructive/anti establishment goal". I can see this point but think there is a bit more to it.
ReplyDelete