If something is art, should it be respected and preserved? for Questionland Seattle

Reputation: 1962

If something is art, should it be respected and preserved?

I once claimed that the monochrome walls of my garage are art. And why not? After all, I put thought into how it looks, and chose the color. It's minimalism. And of course when you look at the overall effect of homes where people spend untold hours weeding and tending their roses and choosing all the elements that create the gestalt they want with their house and the grounds, surely that is art, isn't it?

Should art be protected from destruction? Even if we don't appreciate it ourselves?

I'm talking about graffiti of course. Because once you find some graffiti you like, and you label it art, does that mean we aren't allowed to paint it over? That now we have a duty to respect the graffiti artist's work, even if they didn't respect whatever they painted over?

Or is the question of whether it is art beside the point? Is the inevitable removal of graffiti an intrinsic element of the medium? Graffiti-like squiggles on a canvas kind of lose something, don't they? Because the risk and the transgression and the immanent destruction are part of the work. If authorities put their blessing on it, and said some graffiti was now protected art, wouldn't it stop being what it was mean to be? If the city stopped cleaning up graffiti, and accepted it, wouldn't it no longer be real graffiti?

elenchos asked in Artist Resources over 2 years ago | Report

New answers are not being accepted at this time.

Asker's Favorite

Reputation: 61

Expert: 1 topic

Follow 0

Sharon Arnold

4 0

I think these are a lot of questions wrapped up in one, so I'm going to answer the big one first:

What is art, and should we preserve it?

Who the fuck knows. Does it matter?

To the detriment of my peers, my work is non-archival. But hell, I'm non-archival. For me, the point is not whether or not the work will be around in a hundred years - it's about the process of making and enjoying it now, and placing it into the lives of people *now*. Perhaps there's an element of irresponsibility in that attitude, in respect to documentation and history, but I'm not going to presume that the work I make is relevant to that. Again, the everything I'm doing is about the present, for the present. Life is transient. Why wouldn't art be? Besides, the argument for history can be demonstrated through the preservation of deteriorating works by Eva Hesse - we learn something by seeing her work shift, sag, crumble, and change. In it, perhaps we see ourselves.

I think it's beautiful that street/graffitti art is temporary. It's a moment in time. If you see it, you've captured it. Artists on the street are not consumed with documentation of history. They're in it for the enjoyment, for sharing it with whomever comes across it. Perhaps it doesn't translate the same way when it's decal-d or spray-painted on a gallery wall or canvas, but that doesn't remove its legitimacy or relevance. It's a contextual change from outside to inside; from part of our daily lives to something on a pedestal. There shouldn't be a value judgement there - it's merely a change in presentation. The meaning will take on new layers, for sure - who's enjoying the spray-painted gallery? That's an important question.

There will always be a counterculture changing the way they make art, where, and how. We're losing nothing by alternative movements being accepted into the mainstream. Culture shifts, so do we. That's how it should be.

Sharon Arnold answered in Artist Resources over 2 years ago | Report

Comment on this answer

Share this answer with a friend:

Latest Greatest

4 Other Answers

Reputation: 3429

Follow 3

4 0

There is no obligation to respect or preserve art. Art is in the eye of the beholder and it is up to them that beholds it, to preserve it. Graffiti is a temporary art installation and has no more right to preservation than performance art does.

Kip Waddle answered in Artist Resources over 2 years ago | Report

Comment on this answer

Share this answer with a friend:

Reputation: 13

Follow 0

lucasdeonspivey

3 0

I don't think many of these questions are answerable by anyone I know. I know that because I have asked them myself. Why not ______? Shouldn't people ____? Nobody had answers for me and I don't mean to dodge your questions, but they are moot when you can't control something that doesn't belong to you.

If it's your garage, then yes you can respect and preserve it. If it's a rental, then no it will probably not be respected or preserved. And just like anything else, your garage wall is going to somehow return to the Earth someday. So it's best to enjoy it while you have it and not worry about it too much.

There are laws about the removal/use of public art, but most of them pertain to "commissioned" works of art, not graffiti. You could look into doing murals for public buildings or bus stops . There are also friendly art spaces looking for muralists in street styles. The Ver(a)rt Gallery at the Vera Project has a call for muralists right now and there is a guy with a portable mural wall called Gallery 40 - and he's looking for artists too.

lucasdeonspivey answered in Artist Resources over 2 years ago | Report

1 comment by elenchos…

Share this answer with a friend:

Reputation: 1610

Follow 0

3 0

I've been thinking about this off and on today and have concluded that some the beauty of art is that it _is_ ephermal. People have gone to a great deal of trouble and expense to preserve a small proportion of pieces over the ages, but it's all living on borrowed time. When graffiti is art, it's worth seeing because it might be gone tomorrow.

No one mends the Venus de Milo. Its broken state makes it better by reinforcing that one day it will be dust--so look now.

CleverScreenName answered in Artist Resources over 2 years ago | Report

Comment on this answer

Share this answer with a friend:

Reputation: 72

Expert: 1 topic

Follow 0

Jessie Oleson, Cakespy

2 0

I think that there is a difference between street art and graffiti. For instance, I don't consider a lame tag on top of some small business's window art. But, I do consider the artwork done say, on the side of subway cars in nyc in the 80's, to be art.

I think that street artists employ a certain measure of respect--in terms of the thoughtful placement of their artwork in places that won't necessarily "hurt" anyone--to the thoughtful artwork itself, which might not be everyone's style but is obviously done with care. A tag done just to make one's mark is just that--I find it no better than litter.

That having been said, the difference between the two can be fuzzy, hence the long standing issue with the law, I think. I also think that the dangerous aspect adds a dimension to the art--not only for the artist but for the viewer, prompting them to wonder about the circumstances of its creation--for instance, "how'd they get up there?" if it's in an improbably high spot, or just "how'd they get away with that?".

Jessie Oleson, Cakespy answered in Artist Resources over 2 years ago | Report

1 comment by elenchos…