|
|
ALSO
|
|
I forgot to mention that a large section of this is now part of the historical art archives at the SSCAC. I'm full of fun facts.
|
|
|
SSCAC things
|
|
Hey all! I actually put together the "Inside Out" fundraiser and just a couple FYI's to add. I was given carte blanche for the show and so were the artists. The room was actually in quite poor condition and we spent 2 days prepping the walls (and radiator :) and using Killz over water damage and etc. The plaster walls have always had boards attached to them in order to hang art. These boards were transformed into art in order to be torn down and sold in pieces to fund the restoration project. The whole project has been a great success and the restoration will be complete by the end of January. The SSCAC is a culturally specific historical institution and though the website is in slight disarray you can find out more about it at southsidecommunityartcenter.com.
We appreciate the article and the talk that has spurred from it. I just thought i'd add a lil' more info for anyone that may like to know. Also, FYI, the piece shown above is solely the work of D Menace. (Select Inverse did a sticker piece on another wall and the Novem, AFA, and Onyx tags were shout outs so to speak... quite obviously i am not a graffiti artist :)
|
|
Response to MICO
|
|
Thank you for your input MICO. It's especially interesting to hear the commentary of an artist on this subject.
|
|
The Real Problem With "Graffiti"
|
|
Let me begin with the suggestion that:
The term "graffiti" is to "Writin' " what he "n" word is to African American.
As a member of the Original School of Writin' (1969 - 1973) in NYC, I can tell you that the number one problem with "graffiti" is that the people who are not members of the Original School because of the chronological reality, need to un a stand that we, the inventors of this Culture, DID NOT and DO NOT call our Culture "graffiti." We called it and still call it "Writin' ."
As you will un a stand after you digest the page http://www.webspawner.com/users/micoaslatinpride/aerosolartvsgra.html the infamous "g" word is a racist and denigrating term that those powers that be gave our Culture for the reasons explained on that web page.
Secondly, the illegal element of Writin' is one of the more powerful elements of this Culture. Once you remove this element of illegality by bringing the work on a canvas or any other surface into a gallery or museum, or once one does "legal" Writin', then obviously, the same is no longer illegal. It is no longer Writin'.
This the reason why I call what I do today "an extension of the work I did on public surfaces in NYC as part of the Original School of Writn', or "Abstract Social Realism."
I feel that the confusion over thhis issue is created by the greedy gallery owners and other art world entrepreneurs who in their quest for exploiting a working man's original art form, confuse everyone who is uneducated about out Culture with their idiotic attempt at trying to make our Culture "legal" without realiizing that as I explain above, it's impossible to do so.
MICO
|
|
|
Challenge Remains
|
|
Thanks for your input Natalie.
I agree generally with what you are saying, but I think that graffiti could and should make the transition into the gallery, my point here is that the artists need to use their creativity to make that jump successfully. Is the appeal of graffiti art that it is "aggressive, destructive"? Not for me, the site specificity of the art is a major component, no doubt, but in the best work there's more going on than just putting something up on a wall. Like you say, there maybe be a different set of restrictions when presenting the work in a gallery but artists have always overcome challenges and graffiti artists should overcome this one.
|
|
lost in translation
|
|
Great article Abraham--I agree, more steps should be taken to link graffiti and art history, to research the scope of influence of one on the other, something I hope to contribute to through my own studies..
Museum shows of graffiti pop up every once in a while still, like the Fondation Cartier show, the show at PS1 a few years ago, and even in far-flung places like Mito, Japan... Since graffiti is inseparable from its context, however, taking graffiti from its "natural habitat" and transplanting it into the white box of the museum means losing a real sense of the medium, and dulling its interpretation. The site-specific nature of graffiti is crucial to its meaning. Taking the risk and the illegality from the pieces, those painted on gallery or museum walls present a different set of restrictions, not to mention a set date for "buffing". We can see it in the picture above that the folks at SSCAC most definitely said something like "Yeah, do what you like, guys, but please try not to paint on the radiator". The aggressive, destructive side of graffiti when placed in the context of an institution neutralizes it and renders it benign, inoffensive. It inevitably becomes lost in translation (or transplantation).
It's a complicated issue, bringing a countercultural art form into the institution. Like Ybarra Jr. points out, we're speaking different languages. But it's the art world's loss if it refuses to acknowledge or explore graffiti's wider impact on contemporary art. It tends to be discounted--as site-specific, illegal graffiti has no monetary value (even a negative value is ascribed to it), cannot be sold at auction, acquired by an institution, enter an important collection... Yet canvas works by graffiti artists cannot adequately capture the allure of the site-specific works.. In any case we find that, art-historically speaking, graffiti is held captive by its context..
|
|
|
|
print this page