No where is it better demonstrated than in the blog of James Maybe. He loves the former and dismisses the latter.
James Maybe on the mural below by Can Two:
I hesitate to even upload this crap to my site, but eventually the buzz about some artist rings so loud in my ears I have to do something. The above mural is typical of Can Two, who is doubly dammed for working in a medium that, to date, has produced exactly one artist worth more than ten seconds of your time, and for making his work “kid friendly”. Stylized, airbrushed, illegible text, uninspired color choices, urban hip-hop caricatures, sloppy composition. Instead of Bombing the Suburbs, how about we tar and feather the graffiti artists?
I like a site with a point of view, but the violence of his hostility startles. One artist only? I’m more disturbed by advertising. Graffiti is ordinarily its antidote, although it too can be harnessed to push product. At its best (and there’s plenty of best), graffiti a gift and a sign of life outside the rules of the corporate elite. If I want to get really disturbed, I can contemplate the effects of unregulated capitalism and the ruinous fallout of its free markets.
Street art of all sorts annoys me, because it tends to take a political stance but fails have political substance.
After a while, it all strikes me as egotistical and shallow bullshit.
That said, freedom is good. Condoning a little bit of illegal bad art provides a buffer around our liberties, you might say. It’s the experimenting around the edges that sometimes leads somewhere exciting and new.
But it still annoys me a lot.
This James guy comes off pretty much the same way as all of the folks that dismiss his beloved pop surrealism as nothing more than commercial illustration gone Addams family. Is he so mentally constipated as to not get the source of the clouds in the Jeff Soto piece he has on his site? Graffiti is art much in the same way that the cave paintings in Lascaux or the glyphs in Cheops. Sometimes it may infringe upon folks but I like to see it for what it is, a means to remind people that we live in a world in which not everything needs to be regulated to the point of absolute uniformity and controlled by market forces. It may not fall into the realm of “fine art” and alot of folks may despise it but that is more than ok to most graffiti writers because those people really are not the audience anyway.
What a way to wake up to the sound of an uneducated ignorant person who knows absolutely nothing about one of the most beautiful forms of art in the world.
The complex styles built within each other, bending through and manipulate letters and characters to form something so abstract and original that an admirer can acknowledge who the artist is just by the blur of colors 300 yards away.
Its funny that those who dont understand something declare it crap. Anyone who knows Can2 knows that he doesnt paint illegals anymore.. This picture uploaded was on a legal commisioned wall that has been designated as a public canvas for artist to paint on.
These artists pour their lives and souls into their art, some better than others, many who yes, do disrespect others properties (something i DONT agree with, but do understand) as the level of artisic ability in the past 20 years has grown faster than any other type of art due to these people having no where to paint but trains and buildings.
If one may questions if it really is “Fine Art” what is Fine Art.. what is and what isnt sloppy composition.. Out of respect of the best of the best, google these artists: DAIM, SABER, SEVER, TOTEM2, COPE2, PEETa..
Then tell me that this art is sloppy and child like after you see masterpeices these artist create.. masterpeices that have fetched much more $$ than you would have ever imagined.
Maybe in some cases, but in my opinion the exceptions are so notable as to turn this argument on its ear.
Some of the most moving public art I’ve ever seen in person are the 600+ murals in the Mission District in San Francisco. They have an entire aesthetic vocabulary unto themselves, and they are chock full of political content about gentrification, poverty, indigenous rights, etc. They work because they are a natural, seamless cultural product of the place they are situated in, and community members of all ages and levels of society have directly participated in their production. Also, it seems to me that even the most politically charged among them express more hope than cynicism.
Hi Emily. I’m not sure what you mean by a political stance that fails to have political substance. Examples? Regina
Regina: I don’t really know what that means, either. I was quoting Tychotesla, the first commenter on this post, and disagreeing with him/her.
Sorry, Emily. I was reading you in isolation.