While I don't want to linger too long on the graf aspect of this thread,
it could raise interesting questions about art in public spaces. I think
one way of thinking about graffiti is that it takes all public space as a
canvas for art. Admitedly, this sometimes conflicts with more legal
and traditional definitions of public space, but one way of thinking about
such space is that if it's out in the open for everybody to see, it's fair
game for all viewers to recreate in a way they like. Is it fair that only
those who own property get to define what we see on our walls, billboards,
etc. when we walk around every day? Isn't that a fundamentally elitist
definition of art and visual culture? Graffiti artists aren't generally
breaking into priviate property and defacing that--almost by definition,
they're creating where other people can see it.
Now it possible to argue with that conception of public space, and I don't
have a complete attachment to it, although it has a certain appeal. But
what do you think about other anti-elitist, possibly annoying forms of
public art? What about music blasted from boomboxes? Killer bass in
low-riding cars? Audio terrorism is general, where one person imposes his
or her musical tastes on the public?
And before you say that's just noise pollution, consider the musical
tastes that are imposed on us all the time, in a state-sanctioned way.
Elevator music in stores is the most glaring example. Might it not be
more democratic to let everybody who's interested compete for our ears,
rather than just those with the money to play us music that will increase
our sales rates, as scientifically verified by consumer experts?
The next step becomes more aggresively pirate art. Pirate radio for
example, is a kind of break-in to private airwaves, although why a public
resource has been privatized like that is a moral stumper (not an economic
one mind you). Defacing billboards, often to subvert their meaning (like
the artists who changed Amelia Earhart's Apple ad to "Think Doomed"). I
need to read more about the Situationists, but it seems like one of the
few ways to avoid playing proscripted roles in a mass media culture is to
subvert spectacle society, and reclaim public space for individuals.
IDM loves to talk about indie labels, avoiding the hegemony of the major
labels, etc. But art like graffiti in effect takes discussions of art out
of the consumer context altogether. Graffiti isn't bought or sold (except
in commodified, bastardized versions), but just is. Thus, it has more
artistic integrity than any art for sale, because it answers to nobody,
eexcept perhaps the police. Here, the artist controls who sees their work
and when--the tradeoff is that there ain't a way to make a living doing
real graffiti.
Anyway, ponder that before criticizing graffiti out of hand. personally,
i think it would be a more interesting world if everybody started making
art and music and broadcasting it to the public. It might disintegrate
into a cacophony, indeed probably would, but it would be fun, messy,
dirty, and most of all, not corporate.
Comrade Sam sez "Power to the people!"