on art and context
yesterday i read the recent article in the new yorker about the street-artist-cum-activist banksy (whoah):
The graffitist’s impulse is akin to a blogger’s: write some stuff, quickly, which people may or may not read. Both mediums demand wit and nimbleness. They arouse many of the same fears about the lowering of the public discourse and the taking of undeserved liberties.
then also came across a photo of this most amazing piece of street art (in SF on turk btw gough and franklin):
 |
this morning orange and i went to the SF MOMA to see the picasso exhibit, and i have to say: art is cool, but something about that which sits in museums bores me while i find street art so much more inviting. this quote in the new yorker from bansky (who, like his stylistic predecessor andy warhol, claims to abhor the art world while at the same time making millions off it) is, in terms of the western world, one that i occasionally agree with: “The art world is the biggest joke going,” he has said. “It’s a rest home for the overprivileged, the pretentious, and the weak.”
is this what makes indigenous art so much more appealing, graffiti included, than that produced by the likes of art school graduates and the professionally trained? that there is so much less pretense? i think maybe. i think the same is true for fashion: street fashion = exciting; industry fashion (see: H&M)= weak.i had a similar thought while at the MOMA, trying to describe why i don’t like the work of jasper johns (or warhol, really) in the same way i don’t like the current trend in 80s retro fashion: i don’t have a lot of respect that which is mainly a commentary on other art that’s already been done. for one: it’s pretentious. for two: create something new.
or: is it all just context? (thx to kurian for that link). art without context = nothing, so why am i judging museum art because of its context? it’s just too hard not to – things in museums are WAY over-contextualized, and thus seem to lose their meaning, while street art retains it’s original context and thus seems so much more meaningful to me. what’s funny and what that washington post link is about is that for the cult of personality that is the “art world”, which bansky’s quote applies to more than the artist themselves, it’s just the opposite: until something gains enough status to be presented in the right formal context (museum, gallery, opera house), it’s not interesting/worthwhile.
Filed in art, bay area gems, culture and random linkage | Tagged with banksy | Comments (3)3 Responses to “on art and context”
Leave a Reply
i just watched the film “children of men,” which makes an interesting comment on art. the way i interpret what the film is saying is, “is there a purpose to art if no one will experience it,” and “what is art if devoid of any historical context?”
As a fashionista, I can tell you that H & M is fucking rad. That’s all.
re: Children of Men. i had forgotten about the art commentary in that movie – it was interesting. (see my post on the movie here: www.amyleblanc.com/index.php?id=P1892 )