Graffitti

[Charles]

There was no vandalism supplies store near where I worked, there were print shops and mini marts. But I painted over hex's vandalism many times, back when he was a mere juvenile delinquent vandal. Fuck hex. Fuck the lot of you. What takes you hours to vandalize, I can cover in mere minutes. But I can't heal someone who has been cut to shreds by a vandalized plate glass window. You bear some of the responsibility for that, by promoting vandalism to gullible stupid kids. My friend's blood is on your hands too.

You know, just today, I read about the Grey Ghost, he paints over vandalism in New Orleans with grey paint, the vandals hate him. So Banksy went and threw up some crap in N.O. as a response. I am clearly on the Grey Ghost's side. I decided it is my life's work to seek out Banksy's crap and paint over it with Chapparal Brown. You can call me Chapparal Charles, the Anti-Banksy.

[Charles]

Are the two mutually exclusive?

Yes. Let me tell you another graffiti story.
Right about the time of my previous story, the vandals were seeking legitimacy as real artists. So they tried to organize an exhibition featuring their vandalism, with live painting performances. But they couldn't find any place to do it, nobody wanted an assembly of vandals anywhere near them. Finally after months of negotiation, Raleigh Studios on Melrose agreed to host the show, with one absolute condition, no graffiti allowed anywhere except on canvases prepared for the show. None outside the studio or anywhere near it. The word was given out to the exhibiting vandals and the audience (which presumably included wanabee vandals) to obey the rule, or nobody would ever take them seriously.
As I drove down Melrose to work the morning after the show, I was not at all surprised to see the outer wall of Raleigh Studios covered with tags and vandalism, some even by the exhibiting vandals. They could not help themselves, they only did it because it was forbidden. They could have been satisfied with their presentation to the people who wanted to see it, but no, they had to put their vandalism where people did NOT want to see it, and where they had pledged not to put it. That is the difference between an artist and a vandal, an artist would have been happy to put his work in front of an appreciative audience, a vandal insists on putting his work where it is not wanted. Melrose Studios filed criminal charges and the exhibitors were fined and forced to paint over the vandalism.

Would that also mean that folk art is not art?


BTW, you can't blame the window breaking for the poor guy losing his work. That's his fault and yours for not backing it up.

Folk art has nothing to do with it, nobody's forcing folk art in anyone's face.

You apparently fail to see the direct causal link. If the vandals hadn't weakened the window with glass cutters, he would have been pushed against the window and bounced off. But he went right through it and was almost killed. I'm not saying his hard drive and car got stolen by the vandals (although there is a chance that it was). I don't even know if he had the files backed up in his studio, or whether the work ever got to his publisher. I don't think he gave a shit, he was more concerned with staying alive.

[hundefar]

It might be art, but who fucking cares? if it is on other people's property it is out of order. It is as simple as that.

[pheyton]

[Samurai_Jerk]

Yes. Let me tell you another graffiti story.
Right about the time of my previous story, the vandals were seeking legitimacy as real artists. So they tried to organize an exhibition featuring their vandalism, with live painting performances. But they couldn't find any place to do it, nobody wanted an assembly of vandals anywhere near them. Finally after months of negotiation, Raleigh Studios on Melrose agreed to host the show, with one absolute condition, no graffiti allowed anywhere except on canvases prepared for the show. None outside the studio or anywhere near it. The word was given out to the exhibiting vandals and the audience (which presumably included wanabee vandals) to obey the rule, or nobody would ever take them seriously.
As I drove down Melrose to work the morning after the show, I was not at all surprised to see the outer wall of Raleigh Studios covered with tags and vandalism, some even by the exhibiting vandals. They could not help themselves, they only did it because it was forbidden. They could have been satisfied with their presentation to the people who wanted to see it, but no, they had to put their vandalism where people did NOT want to see it, and where they had pledged not to put it. That is the difference between an artist and a vandal, an artist would have been happy to put his work in front of an appreciative audience, a vandal insists on putting his work where it is not wanted. Melrose Studios filed criminal charges and the exhibitors were fined and forced to paint over the vandalism.

Folk art has nothing to do with it, nobody's forcing folk art in anyone's face.

You apparently fail to see the direct causal link. If the vandals hadn't weakened the window with glass cutters, he would have been pushed against the window and bounced off. But he went right through it and was almost killed. I'm not saying his hard drive and car got stolen by the vandals (although there is a chance that it was). I don't even know if he had the files backed up in his studio, or whether the work ever got to his publisher. I don't think he gave a shit, he was more concerned with staying alive.

I'm with you that taggers are criminals and don't do anything but destroy people's property. However, I fail to see how the legality or illegality or your or my acceptance of something determines whether or not it's art. Why are art and vandalism mutually exclusive?

Also, you implied that taggers were not artists because they lacked any artistic influence that would be accepted by a conceited fine arts major. If that were true, then folk artists would also not be classified as artists.

[Charles]

Also, you implied that taggers were not artists because they lacked any artistic influence that would be accepted by a conceited fine arts major. If that were true, then folk artists would also not be classified as artists.

I glossed over that point, and reconsidered it. So I will address it.

The reason they are called "folk artists" and not just plain "artists" is because they are disconnected from other artistic influences. Artists' works are a dialogue with other artists and other artworks throughout history. That's why I chose the trick question to screw with the vandals, I knew they'd never be able to come up with anything that connected their work to a wider world of art, they were inspired solely by the urge to emulate other vandals. But if the high school kid who cited daVinci would have said something like "well I like how daVinci uses shading [even if he didn't use the specific term chiaroscuro] in some of the faces he painted, and I'm trying to use it here in this graffiti," then I probably would have offered to write him a letter of recommendation to art school and tried to get him a scholarship.

[Charles]

As for famous graffiti artists who have gone on to more productive lives, Keith Harring ring a bell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti

Or Basquiat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Michel_Basquiat

To name a few.

Yeah, and they both died young due to their stupid, self-destructive habits, leaving behind a very tiny body of work.

I wondered how long it would take you to dredge through wikipedia and google to find those two. I knew you would cite the early 80's graffitists. I might even have given the vandals a pass if they had cited Basquiat. And then I would have explained that Basquiat (and Haring) only gained credibility in the art world after giving up their vandalism. Haring was barely more than a poster illustrator, a poseur that paved the way for other pseudo-artists like Kostabi. But Basquiat was something entirely else, nobody before or since has done anything like him, so he's not a good example of anything in particular. He could never happen again.

Perhaps you don't know the story of Basquiat as well as I do, I've studied him for years. Basquiat was an artist because he was in a direct dialogue with artists, collaborating with Warhol, Schnabel, and others, once he gave up stupid vandalism. Back when he was writing graffiti as SAMO, he wrote little poems. Once he hit it big, people tore the SAMO scribbles off walls (sometimes taking the wall itself) and sold them for big bucks. There's a famous (and true) incident that was even depicted in the movie "Basquiat," where he saw some people tearing down a door he'd written on years earlier. He tried to stop them, and they beat the crap out of him, injuring him badly. It was one of the reasons he caved in to his heroin addiction, leading to his death. Towards the end, he was scribbling in ballpoint pen on paper and giving them as payment to his drug dealers, with the instructions to take them to his gallery and have his signature authenticated. I remember reading one story of how an art dealer got a call from an anonymous source, offering to sell him an original Basquiat drawing for $300 if he'd meet at an ATM and pay cash. The drawing looked authentic, but it had an odd embossing over the lines. He was skeptical but he paid the money, and it turned out to be a real Basquiat. The next night, one of the art critic's friends got a similar call, same deal. He bought the drawing and the two of them compared their purchases. They were the exact same drawings, except one of them was a tracing of the other, a forgery made by the drug dealer. That explained the odd embossed lines on the original.

Anyway, I digress. The 80's graffiti outburst was a short lived phenomenon in a jaded world where anything new was seized upon. And a bunch of junkies and shameless self-promoters were just grist for the mill. They got chewed up and spit back out without making much impact. And ultimately, this is why their imitators and followers are NOT art. They are mere copies of something that happened 25 years ago. And that's the worst thing you can say to a wannabee artist, "it's been done before." Graffiti is so 80s. The 80s sucked. Graffiti sucks. This is the 21st century, try something new, or else you're just a bad joke and you don't get it, the joke is on you.

[Samurai_Jerk]

I glossed over that point, and reconsidered it. So I will address it.

The reason they are called "folk artists" and not just plain "artists" is because they are disconnected from other artistic influences. Artists' works are a dialogue with other artists and other artworks throughout history. That's why I chose the trick question to screw with the vandals, I knew they'd never be able to come up with anything that connected their work to a wider world of art, they were inspired solely by the urge to emulate other vandals. But if the high school kid who cited daVinci would have said something like "well I like how daVinci uses shading [even if he didn't use the specific term chiaroscuro] in some of the faces he painted, and I'm trying to use it here in this graffiti," then I probably would have offered to write him a letter of recommendation to art school and tried to get him a scholarship.

I could also argue that whether or not the jackass kid painitng a picture on the wall realizes or not, he is in a sense in dialogue with other artists. He grew up being exposed to graphic design in advertising, comic book and cartoon characters, fine arts in mandatory art classes in school or through field trips to museums, and yes even other jackass kids paining on walls. It seems that the only thing you can say is that they are vandals and piss you off (as they do most people). It still seems you can't answer the question why vandalism and art are mutually exclusive.

[Charles]

I could also argue that whether or not the jackass kid painitng a picture on the wall realizes or not, he is in a sense in dialogue with other artists. He grew up being exposed to graphic design in advertising, comic book and cartoon characters, fine arts in mandatory art classes in school or through field trips to museums, and yes even other jackass kids paining on walls. It seems that the only thing you can say is that they are vandals and piss you off (as they do most people). It still seems you can't answer the question why vandalism and art are mutually exclusive.

It's the core of the matter: are they consciously aware of their dialogue with other artists, or not? That was the point of my question to the vandals. Sure we're all influenced by the arts we see. But that doesn't make you an artist, the conscious decision to engage in that dialogue is what makes you an artist, you learn the language and speak it.
The vandals aren't artists because they want to speak in the language of other vandals, it's a closed world disconnected from the art world. They see the work of other vandals and want to emulate those destructive urges. It's about egos, not the advancement of culture.

[Samurai_Jerk]

It's about egos, not the advancement of culture.

It's about ego for any artist that wants his work displayed in a gallery.

[pheyton]

As you can see on the wiki page, there are artists in galleries all over the world. I never said graffiti was right, but it is an art and the world has come to acknowledge it.

I'm sorry Charles, you're arrogance is saddening. There are no rules to art. For you to say "this" is what makes an artist an artist shows that you really don't understand art. You may be well studied in art, but you have no understanding of it. I think 90% of modern art it shit, but I would never say that person is not an artist because he doesn't do "blank" or wasn't inspired by this person.

A few other graffiti artists have been a major influence in modern fashion and pop culture. Futura 2000, Kaws, Fairey, etc.

From Futura:

"It was the platform I needed to showcase my talents. not just painting canvases but actually creating artistic compositions. I never went to ART school, and wasn't even sure who Warhol was, but I knew I had something. I had always known that. Right place right time, that's me...... I always go against popular opinions, like to blaze my own trails."

We are beating our heads against a wall. It doesn't matter what we say, you will continue to believe what you believe. As for me, I recognize it as an art, vandalism or not, just as I recognize skateboarding as a sport vandalism or not.

[Charles]

It's about ego for any artist that wants his work displayed in a gallery.

You might be surprised. One of the most notoriously egotistical artists is Picasso. He created a painting that is widely considered to be the most important work of the 20th century, "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon," it's one of those works that is so well known it's just referred to by a single word, "Demoiselles." But when he created it, he was so afraid to show it to anyone, he hid it under his bed for 5 years. Finally, one of his buddies saw the corner of it sticking out, said "What's this then?" and pulled it out, said "ooh that's interesting, we're doing a show, let's exhibit it." Cubism was born and the art world hasn't been the same since.

One of my favorite art books is "Psychoanalyzing the Artist," a text written by a psychoanalyst in New York who worked with all the famous NY artists of the Ab Ex era. In it, he says artists are an odd combination of insecurities and ego. The world tells them they're crazy, that their art is worthless, so they cover up their insecurities with a big puffed up ego. But it's all just a performance, the only way they know how to survive in a world that constantly rejects them and their work.

Now the graffiti vandals are a bit different. It's solely fueled by the ego strokes of putting their name on the forbidden target. There's no self-examination, no constant drive to figure out how your work fits within the arts. A piece is put up as a monument to oneself, regardless of whether it's a tag or an elaborate multicolored work. The only interest it gained from the art world is in that stupid category of "ironic appreciation," like the rubbish people post on Boing Boing, crappy album covers of 50's ukelele music with tiki artwork, etc. People think they're so cool because they can see the art in something so ridiculous. It's a sham, a game by uberhipsters trying to be cooler than thou. That doesn't make it art, it makes it a scam.

[Mulboyne]

Your argument seems to be circular. You believe an arrogant boor is really a tortured artist if you like what he does while another arrogant boor remains an unforgiveable egotist if you don't care for his work.

[Charles]

Your argument seems to be circular. You believe an arrogant boor is really a tortured artist if you like what he does while another arrogant boor remains an unforgiveable egotist if you don't care for his work.

[citation needed]

[nottu]

[pheyton]

This whole discussion about what is art, mutually exclusive or otherwise, is a load of horseshit. All these so called artists are doing their thing in private and public places that don't want them doing it, so they can be seen where they don't have to earn it. Take their spray cans away, cut their dicks off, and throw them in jail - the world is better place.
If they tried that shit on my house they wouldn't get out of the yard.

Always nice to see the "men" join in the conversation and interject something regarding their own lack of "manhood".

[nottu]

[Samurai_Jerk]

Always nice to see the "men" join in the conversation and interject something regarding their own lack of "manhood".

Is that you projecting your own lack of manhood?

[Charles]

Is that you projecting your own lack of manhood?

That's a rhetorical question, right?

That's the only reason graffiti vandals do it. It's the modern equivalent of pissing somewhere to mark your territory.

[Caustic Saint]

It's the modern equivalent of pissing somewhere to mark your territory.

Not any more. Trolling online forums is all the rage these days.

[FIST!]

This whole discussion about what is art, mutually exclusive or otherwise, is a load of horseshit. All these so called artists are doing their thing in private and public places that don't want them doing it, so they can be seen where they don't have to earn it. Take their spray cans away, cut their dicks off, and throw them in jail - the world is better place.
If they tried that shit on my house they wouldn't get out of the yard.

I like the cut of your gib. You shall be spared my wrath. FIST!

[Greji]

Not any more. Trolling online forums is all the rage these days.

What happened to the good old days when all trolling was done in a dress and heels?

[Charles]

OK, I take back everything I said. I saw something that convinced me that Graffiti is the pinnacle, the highest form of modern art.

[GomiGirl]

modern? This is ancient history!! (thank god imho)

But I bet you are still wearing your stone washed jeans - up around your waist. You trend-setter you!!

[Charles]

modern? This is ancient history!! (thank god imho)

But I bet you are still wearing your stone washed jeans - up around your waist. You trend-setter you!!

Apparently you don't recognize irony (or humor). Graffiti is as cool as Vanilla Ice.

My first Modern Art History course covered the time period 1750 through 1900, that is the usual application of the term "Modern" in art history. Other "Modern" periods often cover the period 1950 through today (or sometimes 1900 through today) although that is usually considered "Contemporary Art."

I've never worn stone washed jeans, although I did once have an artist's loft next to a stone-washing factory (oh the stench of acid was horrible). I only wear Versace jeans or vintage Girbaud "cowboy cut" jeans (not their new lame hiphop crap).

[kurohinge1]

My first Modern Art History course covered the time period 1750 through 1900 . . .

Did the more gifted students graduate a little quicker than that?

[Mike Oxlong]

You saying Chuck is the Highlander?!

[Samurai_Jerk]

I've never worn stone washed jeans, although I did once have an artist's loft next to a stone-washing factory (oh the stench of acid was horrible). I only wear Versace jeans or vintage Girbaud "cowboy cut" jeans (not their new lame hiphop crap).

You really are a fucking fag.

[Greji]

You really are a fucking fag.

Well, we all got our hobbies...