From the Quaternions Sent Mon, May 10th 1999, 14:22
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!"