The texts and film for this week's discussion relate art to it's accessibility and demand a more pointed examination of this relationship.
I. How does the context of art influence our appreciation of it? Can you think of a particular tag or piece of street art that evoked a strong feeling/emotion? How does that compare to a memory you may have of an exhibit in a museum?
II. It's interesting to me that Banksy made a transformation of role from intended subject of "Exit Through the Gift Shop," to director. What do you make of this? What relevance does it hold in the context of his career and in the context of the readings?
III. Newman's definition of "mainstream" marks an implicit value for money over art. Indie art and media aims to confront and challenge the mainstream. Is is possible for indie art or media to change or become the mainstream without losing its (allegedly) intrinsic alternative value? What does it mean to you to "sell out?"
We'll cover, at least in part, these questions and responses in class discussion.I'll be giving everyone the opportunity to contribute questions at the start of class on Tuesday, too, so bear that in mind.
Thanks everyone, enjoy the rest of the weekend!
Both the movie and the text address the dynamics of street art and its ramifications on popular culture. I think it's interesting to see how an art form cultivated within the hip-hop culture, became a cultural phenomenon in the last decade. What exactly changed that graffiti/street art, which can be described as the art of the marginalized, was not seen as vandalism anymore, but became a legit art form? Maybe it's because it differs so much from other forms of art/media that are consumed passively and don't regard as much creative energy. Probably it's still the machinery of capitalism that consolidated street art. If properly branded and advertised, it can attract a massive following as we know through Banksy, Fairey, KAWS et al. However, do we really appreciate art or do we passively consume the work of (street) artists and buy into the hype for the coolness factor? I always have to think of Adorno and Horkheimer (if you couldn't tell). Banksy and Fairey offer social and political commentary with their arts, but do consumers reflect on the message? Are they able to decode the producer's message and intention? (Threw some Stuart Hall in there, fyi.) Adorno says that within the cultural industry, only pseudo individuality exists. "Cool" people fancy themselves with a print of Fairey, or a designed bottle, limited edition of course, by KAWS, etc. And a lot of people celebrate this "exquisite and exclusive" (ugh, air quotes) taste as individuality. They are just victims of mass popular culture.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, street art enables a crazy amount of people to access art without breaking a bank or mingling with artificial, obnoxious people during an exhibit in a gentrified neighborhood. So, there's at least one positive development in the art scene. Even with the commercialization and commodification of street art.
I love Yasmin's comment - it got me thinking. However, I am interested as to whether or not there are ramifications of consumers' acceptance and encouragement of street art. Can art (in this case, graffiti) still be appreciated even if the works' commentaries are disregarded? As long as the artistry and aesthetic are found to be appealing by consumers, I fail to see how the art could be inadequately appreciated. Thus, whether or not the producers' messages and intentions are recognized, the product may still be of value; hence why street art has become so sweepingly popular.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, whereas the art's appreciation reflects the consumer, whether or not it is sold out (whether or not it sell outs?) is indicative of the producer. To sell out is to sacrifice ideology or methodology in pursuit of fame/wealth. This redirects our focus to the producer. I do not find art to be mainstream until the authenticity of the work is sacrificed by way of selling out.
I couldn't agree more with Evan's last comment in regards to Lindsay's third question. In my opinion, for an art form to be considered a sell out the artist would have to sacrifice all underlying meaning of the work and just give into being seen as hip. Many consumers who are after the latest trend don't necessarily care why it's the latest trend or about how it started out; all they care about is seeming cool and with the times. Once an artist has gained an audience that no longer cares about the reason for the work, they should be considered a sell out.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, Mailer argues that street artists are often advertising themselves, for the most part they are also trying to convey a message across to the public, whether it be about something personal or political there is always an inspiration behind a work of art. Granted, by tagging their names street artists are doing some self promotion but they are not throwing away the reason behind the paint and I believe that that is the stark difference between a true indie artist and a sell out.
Moreover, to address Lindsay's first question the context in which we view art definitely influences how we appreciate it. I tend to view street art as something done with more passion and more spontaneity than a work that I would see in a museum. Going back to the emergence of graffiti in the 1970s, its purpose was to convey the emotions and politics behind the economic crisis and the racial standings at the time. This foundation gives street art a much more profound connotation than that of the art in exhibits.
Also this is just a fun fact, but in the Tower Cafe in Tisch there is an array of photographs that exhibit some of Fairey's work and his Obey brand. I have some pictures I can show in class (I couldn't get them to upload here). But yeah, just thought it was cool.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Linsey's first question. Personally I am affected by street art more so than art in museums as a result of the its relevance to my life.The new wave of attraction towards street/urban art is related to its relevance to the population. Even if we are not passionate towards the intended message of the art or do not even completely understand it for that matter we identify it as it is a product of our culture, community, and historical time frame. Urban areas where street art is abundant, especially foster strong feelings of community. The Branding Creativity essay describes urban areas as having themes which further emphasis a city's individualism. In short we are attracted to street art because it represents our community and our historical time frame.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2: Banksy in the position of director of the documentary perfectly illustrates how branded artists maintain authenticity through individual entrepreneurship while still utilizing the capitalist market as a tool to advertise their brand. By being in control of the documentary, Banksy can both utilize neoliberal capitalism while still maintaining authenticity by rejecting traditional marketing techniques such as how he directing attention to other characters and kept his identity hidden to the viewers throughout the film. If he had been the subject of the documentary instead of Guetta I think it would of decreased his artistic authenticity as he would have came across as being controlled rather than the one in control of his entrepreneurism.
I think that the context in which we view art certainly has an influence on the way we appreciate it or look at it. Especially with street art, the context is important in regard to the surprise factor. No one is really patrolling the streets looking for great art. To be honest, if Banksy had just marketed himself as an artist and not a street artist with a bone to pick about society, his art wouldn't stand up against traditional artists. He would likely concede this point. The context with which we view art such as Banksy's is important because we view it not for artistic value or technique but for the message and creativity. The tag that sticks out the most to me is a banksy image with a homeless person with a cup. He is holding a sign that says, "keep your coins, I want change." I really don't remember why it ever stuck out to me, but it is my quintessential Banksy piece. I like the message it sends and the imagery is clever and simple. The only real museum piece to stick out to me was the body exhibit at a science museum. It was really provocative and surrounded by controversy. Much in the same way as street art. I think the memories are similar mainly because the pieces are similar in their style and shock factor. I think Banksy's newfound role as director is simply a cover up. If Guetta had made a semi-decent film, I doubt Banksy would have taken over. I don't think Banksy considers himself the street art version of Ken Burns in any way. He simply had the most hold over Guetta and therefore access to the tapes and knew what he wanted to say. I think it certainly affects his career in the way that people can now view him as a sellout in yet another way. I certainly think it is possible for art to enter the mainstream while still holding its alternative value. Banksy's gallery appearance were mainstream but drew such an audience because they were alternative. Popularity should not be what determines whether or not someone has sold out. In my mind, selling out is when someone abandons their past creativity and unique mindset in sake of producing something that appeals to the masses or will garner a lot of public support. I believe this is not the case with Banksy at all. Thank you and goodnight
ReplyDeleteFirst off, great questions!
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting to ponder how the origin/context of art affects the way in which we perceive it. For example, while the art of Thierry Guetta, or “Mr. Brainwash”, is a collection of contrived works whose style has been emulated (or border-line appropriated) from the likes of artists including Banksy or Andy Warhol, the artificial hype that was constructed around his art show led many of those who attended the event to believe that his art was somehow revolutionary, or at least of better quality than it actually was (even Banksy seemed dumbfounded at the high prices MBW’s works sold for). Similarly, I think the fact that Banksy’s signature style is so recognizable adds a lot of value to his art; if one were unfamiliar with the work of Banksy, he/she would probably be less inclined to stop and admire it if they found some on a street corner. In the same way, I would probably be more inclined to appreciate a particular painting if it were hanging in a pristine museum vs. if it were sitting waiting to be sold on a street corner.
As for the third question, I believe that it is (somewhat paradoxically) possible for street art to become mainstream and still maintain its original meaning. This idea was explored very much in the text, as artists like Banksy essentially become entrepreneurs who are familiar to the mainstream, while still rebelling against society. Street art oftentimes proves to be political, and these political messages do not lose their meaning if they become mainstream. Likewise, street artist Fairey was able to capitalize to an extent on his growing popularity by creating a mainstream clothing brand, and his willingness to let the Obama campaign use his now iconic blue/red depiction of Obama’s face. One should keep in mind, however, that many regard someone like Fairey as being “inauthentic”, or a “sell out” as a result of his willingness to pursue such material things.
Your first question made me think about the Bourdieu essay on the relation between taste and art. If I am recalling correctly, I think Bourdieu argues that art is never merely viewed or appreciated in a vacuum. Bourdieu would say that one’s class position determines how we appreciate and consume art. Of course, the argument there is that those who occupy the high and middle class have more access and exposure to a kind of aesthetic education. However, I think as we pointed out when talking about the essay, because of the way in which information has become so readily available, anyone, regardless, of class can be exposed to the aesthetic knowledge that Bourdieu limited to high society. In that regard, I appreciated Banet-Weiser’s essay for her intersectional approach in discussing street art. Anyway, I’ve been wondering if there can be art without context, a kind of transcendental art that moves beyond history, and has some universal quality to it. I don’t think that will happen, but it is an interesting thought to think about. Though I think that context is important when viewing art, I also think that sometimes the context of an artwork can get in the way of the art itself.
ReplyDeleteI don’t have a direct answer to the second question, but I’ve been thinking about the part where Banksy says that Mr. Brainwash was more interesting than he was. How do we read Banksy decision to center the film around Mr. Brainwash, especially in light of the fact that Mr. Brainwash only became an artist through his association with other artists? Guetta’s transformation into Mr. Brainwash suggested to me that anyone can become an artist, but not everyone does it. Did anyone else sense a tinge of irony in the film, or in the way that street art was being depicted at all? I certainly felt some moments of it, particularly in terms of the music. For some reason it just seemed silly and whimsical to me in a way that undercut the tone of the rest of the film.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteSo my earliest exposure to “selling out” probably comes from this Disney movie called Brink that I watched obsessively as a kid. If you don’t recall the movie, it is about teenage inline skaters in California. In the movie, the main character Andy “Brink” Brinker and his friends refer to their group as “soul skaters.” Their motto is that they skate because they love it, and that skating is, and should be, about the pleasure and enjoyment of being able to do crazy, cool, tricks and having fun with your friends. In contradistinction to the “soul skaters” is “Team X-Bladz.” “Team X-Blads” represent everything that the “Soul Skaters” aren’t. They are jerks, competitive, and skate for the money rather than for the pure love of skating. They are the quintessential “sell outs” who threaten the authenticity, integrity, and as one would have it, the “soul” of skating. At one point, Brink, in need of money to help his family pay for bills, and other financial needs, decides to join “Team X-Bladz” and betrays his friends in the process. When his friends find out that he’s joined “Team X-Bladz” they shun him and can’t believe that he sold out. By the end of the movie Disney, of course, has preached about the moral importance of being true to yourself and never compromising your situation and beliefs for the prospect of capital. So as you can imagine, Brink realizes that he was wrong in joining “Team X-Bladz” and returns to being a “soul skater.” Moral of the story: to “sell out” is to trade in your soul for capital. I’m sorry if this is a terrible analogy but I couldn’t help but think of it in relation to this question of selling out. I know it isn’t directly related to art, but it is related to this theme of selling out that we are trying to understand and think critically about. I also used to be really into skateboarding and talk of selling out was always prominent, though it always seemed to be talked about ironically. Like, who wouldn’t want to get free things from sponsors and do what you love doing as a career in the process?
In regards to art I think the perfect example of a so-called artist who has sold out is Jeff Koons. I recently read an article (link below) that talks about the recent Koons
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/What-Jeff-Koons-has-wrought-7950
retrospective held at the Whitney Museum in New York. In the article, the writer says, “So much of what Koons has done and the way he has done it bears the stamp of an astute entrepreneur rather than an artist.” Almost unapologetically, Koons produces art that is so vapid, empty, and kitschy, that it makes me wonder why people flock towards it in the first place? Koons deliberately makes art to be sold. The article goes on to talk about how his art belongs in an auction rather than in a museum. In a way though, I feel like Koons is brilliant for what he is doing. He has tapped into the desires of neoliberal culture and has sold them garbage that they can call gold. Either he is a sociopath, or a complete genius, or even worse he makes it difficult to discern the difference between the two.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBeauty is said to be in the eye of the beholder. This gives way to the fact that art itself can have an infinite number of interpretations and re-interpretations, so much so that the influence of context over our ability to appreciate art diminishes. One need only make a personal connection with the artwork to appreciate it, and can completely disregard its original context. Roland Barthes also argues that the author and the reader (in this case, the artist and the audience studying the artist’s work), should be completely unrelated. Because art is subjective, people will have differing attitudes towards the same artist. In the context of the movie this week, we can observe that after street art was introduced to the concept of monetisation—or after the introduction of street art to the mainstream— and the influence of media hype, we see the real determinant factors that sway an audience’s ability to gauge artistic quality and integrity.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary in part explores the relationship between Thierry and Banksy. Banksy is the street artists that Thierry most desperately wanted to film in the first have of the documentary. At a time when street art was nothing more than professional vandalism in its most negative connotation, Banksy relied almost solely on his own passion and conviction to motivate him to continue his street art. He earns his fame eventually with the opening of his exhibition Barely Legal, introducing street art to the public spotlight. Thierry on the other hand is an amateur film-maker who is later revealed to be nothing more than a simple cameraman who does not even deserve to be called a “film-maker”. This is evident when Thierry creates Life Remote Control, a series of clips that run for 90 minutes without making any sense, proving that Thierry had nothing to say about the craft of street art. He was supposed to show the origin of street art and what it means to do it for the people that practice it, during a time when street art was thrust into the spot-light, and to the attention of art collectors willing to pay hefty sums of money for the work. We notice a role reversal between Banksy and Thierry, with Banksy offering to re-imagine the documentary so that it comes out with more of a narrative, and Thierry takes time off to establish himself as a new street artist. What’s interesting to note is the difference in motivation between the two characters. Again acting out of a passion for his craft, Banksy takes on the task of documentary film-making just to be able to accurately depict street art outside the world of monetisation. On the other hand, Thierry, who has seen the glamour of being a successful street artist, is driven by fame and fortune. By managing to obtain recommendations from established street artists such as Banksy and Fairey, he was able to mask their credibility as his own. This, alone with an interview with L.A. Weekly and the fact that Thierry had the gall to price his work so exorbitantly, no doubt contributed to the hype surrounding his work, and clouding the judgement of the thousands of people who came to see his debut exhibition, Life Is Beautiful. To quote Banksy, “Most artists spend years perfecting their crafts, finding their style. There is no one like Thierry really, even if his art looks quite like everyone else’s."
As street art was the new commodity, the original reasons for its existence did not matter anymore. Suddenly, professional vandalism was cool because it was controlled by the power of monetisation. I think that concept is pretty interesting to think about.
Also, I think it is possible for art to enter the mainstream and still retain its intrinsic value. While the mainstream marks an implicit value for money over art, it does not assume that the mainstream only consists of art that is not worth its money. While that is a subjective matter, I think that the concept of art and monetisation as being independent of each other should be important to note here. The “mainstream” suggests that money has an influence in the direction of how art should be depicted, but indie art and media, which are rarely influenced by money simply because there is none, are influenced only by genuine passion. We can definitely imagine art that is created out of genuine passion that can sell for a lot of money. That has nothing to do with the artist, but more to do with whoever is buying the art. It is up to them to decide whether the art is worth the money they’re paying, but at the same time, it’s up to the artist not to be swayed by this instance of “positive feedback” in terms of financial reward.
ReplyDeleteLindsay, I think your first question is very interesting. I think context drastically influences how we view art no matter what style. People put power and influence into art and as a result everyone starts feeling the same way towards it. The Mona Lisa, for example, is not a masterpiece, in my opinion. It has a dull color scheme, ambiguous interpretations, and overall just seems extremely plain. Why then is this the most famous painting of all time? This is because we have been told it is, people have valued it at 760 million dollars so therefore it has to be good. Everyone talks about how amazing it is, so everyone starts thinking its amazing. Urban street art is different because there is very little context displayed with the art. While Banksy has gained an infamous reputation, he isn’t making his art to become famous. People are less inclined to stop and admire street art because they don’t have any context to the work, and haven’t been influenced by other peoples opinions.
ReplyDeleteI think Banksy’s switch from filmed to filmer was brilliant. Banksy was disenchanted with the whole idea of “selling out” or becoming mainstream, and saw how terrible Thierry was with the camera so instead he switched the focus of the film on the director. This allowed Banksy the power of the movie. Rafael brought up an interesting point, that everyone can become an artist but not everyone does. Thierry only became a street artist through making this movie. He even used this newfound skill to try to make large amounts of money. Its an interesting question to consider. Can anyone become an artist?