intellectual properties

the human race

“The human race is an unfair and stupid competition. A lot of the runners don’t even get decent sneakers or clean drinking water. Some people are born with a massive head start, every possible help along the way and still the referees seem to be on their side. It’s not surprising some people have given up competing altogether and gone to sit in the grandstand, eat junk food and shout abuse. What we need in this race is a lot more streakers.” — banksy

taking a knife to boxes

The greatest crimes in the world are committed not by people breaking the rules but by people following the rules. It’s people who follow orders who drop bombs and massacre villages.

As a precaution to ever committing major acts of evil it is our solemn duty never to do what we’re told; this is the only way we can be sure. –Banksy

the “Village Pet Store And Charcoal Grill”

perhaps some of you saw that a few days ago i linked to an article over there on the right –> in my google reader feed about Banksy’s newest creation in NY, but it still warrants its own blog post.

“New Yorkers don’t care about art, they care about pets. So I’m exhibiting them instead. I wanted to make art that questioned our relationship with animals and the ethics and sustainability of factory farming, but it ended up as chicken nuggets singing. I took all the money I made exploiting an animal in my last show and used it to fund a new show about the exploitation of animals. If its art and you can see it from the street, I guess it could still be considered street art.”

the “Village Pet Store And Charcoal Grill” is half pet “store”, half grocery “store” and contains things like McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets sipping barbecue sauce, a rabbit in a cage putting on her makeup, breaded fish swimming in bowls, hot dogs under heat lamps in cages next to shelves of oscar-meyer looking packaged meat products. you can see photos and watch videos (DEFINITELY WATCH THE VIDEOS!) here.

more about banksy.

obey

like banksy, shepard fairey’s political street art is gaining a lot of attention and cred, especially now that his obama image is ubiquitous with the campaign. this wired article (thx dustin) does a good job describing what it’s all about.

see a gallery of his current (awesome) exhibit in SF here.

UPDATED MUCH LATER: Fairey sold out hardcore (SAKS FIFTH AVENUE!?) screw him. UNFAN.

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):

(artist: via)

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.