blog post #5

Hmmm is graffiti art? Is the sky blue, of course its art! The way the colors complement each other or contrast each other are elements use to define a work of art. Although it isn't your traditional oil on canvas painting it still shows a form of expression. Graffiti in my eyes help create an aesthetic emotion I say this because everybody would have a different opinion on graffiti for example some people may like it some may detest it. If you really look at a work of graffiti the majority of them has smooth organic shapes and bold statement. Do I think that graffiti should be included in museums? I personally feel that although it is really interesting it shouldn't be included in museums because I feel that museums are places people want to go to see art that they can’t see somewhere else. For example you can go to any part of a New York and see graffiti but you can’t go to any part of New York a suspect to see a work done by Picasso. The only way I believe graffiti can be in a museum is if it has its own museum. Also I believe that museums mostly hold antique and vintage painting for different centuries.

Blog #5 (Graffiti)

This work of art is displayed on the corner of Wyckoff Ave and Flushing. Its vibrant colors and unique features can make almost anyone passing by it stop and stare. 

While some might see it as vandalism and illegal play, graffiti can be considered a freedom of expression. Graffiti artist use spray cans to create unique works of art. They use their spray cans as their paintbrush and anything from the outside of a train to the side wall of a building as their blank canvas. Graffiti is different from the works of art we saw in the museums because a lot of the paintings were made on a blank canvas compared to graffiti which is usually created on a larger surface, primarily walls. Graffiti artist have several different reasons for creating their work of art. They create graffiti to express themselves as individuals. I believe graffiti should be included in museums because graffiti is art. Graffiti is detailed and it is not something everyone can create. John Cotton Dana states, “Surely a function of a public art museum is the making of life more interesting joyful and wholesome”. I agree with Dana statement because if museums were to contain more works of art that local people can relate to, people would maybe visit the museums more often because they would be able to relate to the works of art displayed. The audience would be able to identify the works of art easily compared to an old european painting. 

Blog #5

Graffiti is as much a work of art as anything hanging in any museum around the world; an idea conceived and achieved by an expressionist on the walls with spray paint to society's dismay. I don't see very much difference between the spray can of a graffiti artist and the brush of a painter, nor do I see very much distinction in their respective mediums. What I see is an artist and their intent, their creations, all conveyed in unique and equal manners. Had graffiti not originate in an urban setting it would have been much more widely accepted and appreciated by the masses. One may say it lacks substance but one of graffiti's purposes is to immortalize or commerate. Often times when someone is taken before their time graffiti is sprayed onto a wall in memory of a fallen friend or family member, usually in their likeness. Graffiti should absolutely be included in museums because it presents an alternate to oil painting, "a craft that doesn't appeal to the average man" (Dana). In an urban setting you're more likely to come across graffiti on a bridge or on a building than an oil painting. If the art authorities truly held graffiti in contempt commercializing it would likely take the purity out of the art and effectively reduce the likelihood of it surviving any longer than it has. However in order to do that they'd have to acknowledge it as art and their pride casts a shadow too broad and dark to ever do so. In the midst of the fuss of erecting a museum to intertwine the cultures of the man for the public curators "become lost in working out their idea of a museum and forget their public" (Dana).

Blog Post #5 Graffiti

7:00 in the morning, trying to keep my heavy eyelids wide open trying to peek through the crowd, out the J Train window, attempting to catch a tiny brief glimpse of some of Brooklyn's famous graffiti art as the train zips along. Then I ponder. Is it really art?

Yes it indeed is. According to famous philosopher Clive Bell, what makes something art is the aesthetic emotion is sparks from within us. These pieces of graffiti art each have significant forms that do just that. Its purpose it to simply do something you like. Graffiti can have many purposes. Its purpose may serve to simply raise recognition of the artists' given name, or to just thrill the artist who is committing a crime. Graffiti can also be created to provide a place for human purpose, or to give solid form to feeling and ideas. For instance, many graffiti artists create memorials for lost loved ones. This graffiti memorial would serve as a physical memory of that beloved being. Fellow loved ones can gather around and remember their lost friend or family member.

John Cotton Dana in "The Gloom of the Museum" states that art collectors "collected so that they might possess, not that they might use, and not for the pleasure and advancement of the world at large". Dana explains that the collector who previously owned the artworks now displayed in the museums, collected art just to display their wealth. They didn't find pleasure or an emotional attachment in the art. As a result of this, I do not believe that graffiti art should be in museums. Graffiti is an art done for simple recognition and personal pleasure. When graffiti is made for financial benefits, it becomes a job and not a hobby or passion. I believe that what makes graffiti unique and mesmerizing is its canvas. It’s always fun to imagine how the artist got up there, whether the art is on a train, a billboard, or roof. Once graffiti is placed in a museum we lose the thing that makes graffiti art exquisite and unique.

Blog post #5

Despite graffiti being considered vandalism, it’s a form of expression so I believe it is art. When artists create graffiti they usually form it on private property, which is illegal. I think that’s the primary reason why people neglect graffiti and refuse to accept it as art. But if you do it on your own property or in your notebook, without bothering anyone than people will admire it and consider it to be art. A work of graffiti can convey a powerful message behind the artwork, and provoke different emotions. In my point of view, graffiti is definitely a peculiar style of art compared to what I viewed at the Guggenheim or the Met. But it just all depends where the artists decide to create it and if it moves the viewer emotionally in a specific way. In “The Gloom of the Museum” John Cotton Dana states, “a function of a public art museum is the making of life more interesting joyful and wholesome; and surely a museum cannot very well exercise that function unless it relates itself quite closely to the life it should be influencing.” If graffiti were to be included in museums, it would change the type of crowd visiting the museum and the atmosphere. It would make it more interesting and it’ll help expose people to urban culture and educate them to understand and appreciate graffiti for what it is.

Blog #5

    Graffiti can be a form of art not only because of how the style they use on a wall or how they do the names or the piece of art that goes with the graffiti. For me graffiti is a form of art because your able to express your creativity skills and how well you master what you want a wall. A lot of people may not agree on graffiti cause sometimes people do take advantage to mess up a good wall and not fully putting art but just of waste of spray painting. The museums we have visited so far is mainly about figures, faces, colors, abstract art, shapes, sculptures and more about history. It can be similar to some art in the museums cause they have color and different faces or shades that goes with the art.

     I believe that graffiti could be apart of a museum but only if people really used there talent for good and not bad. I say this because most graffiti you see on walls are mainly about gangs or just not real art that makes people stop and say that person that did that is talented. Many artist have what it takes to show case there art around town. Graffiti is art cause if you were to give me a few can of spray cans, l will put in all the talent l have on the wall and show that l do no harm to people. Its just what you express is art and do something that will disgust them and where they live.

Graffiti

Graffiti is definitely art it is a form of expression based on the film we saw in class. Even though many see it as vandalism it turns out the creators have a deeper motive for it. Graffiti is different from what we see in the museums because it's done on peculiar mediums. For example on train walls , on bridges and on building walls. It is similar to what we see in museums because they all use colors, shapes, value and other art elements.  I think graffiti decorates the streets and trains. I personally think it looks cool. I remember when I used to see it on the buildings as a little kid. I was inspired my self to do it my self , but it actually led me to discover my own style of art. I think graffiti would loose its purpose if it was put in museums. So therefore it shouldn't be included in museums. Graffiti should keep making places look creative and full of life.

Daniel F. Ambia
Art and Society
Blog Post 5

          Is Graffiti art? Are Graffiti artists... artists? The dictionary defines graffiti as the following: "writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place." According to the first week of class, artists construct meaningful images and forms, give form to their feelings and ideas and produce extraordinary versions of ordinary objects. Art contains the visual elements, lines, colors, value, texture or what the philosopher Clive Bell would call, "significant form." To answer the question concerning whether or not graffiti is art is simple. Sometimes. When a true graffiti artist goes about creating a "piece" they take their time. They create a rough draft in notebooks, meticulously craft the outline then debate over colors and shading. They create something that takes an enormous amount of creativity and is visually pleasing and stimulating, even the more "sophisticated" pedestrians would have to agree. The talented graffiti artist is still making a statement by covering a public space with unwarranted art, but it is in fact art. While they are still getting their name out there, they are doing it in a way that is aesthetically pleasing to anyone who can appreciate the talent and time put into the work.  On the other hand the people who scratch on subway walls or deface public property with scribble simply to let fellow graffiti artists or hooligans know they were there, I would not consider that art. I would consider that purposefully defacing public property for a smug adolescent satisfaction.

          In his essay collection, "The Gloom of the Museum", John Cotton Dana suggests museums have become "temples and palaces" to house art considered valuable and rare because of its age and social status of the previous owner. He believes art in our society has been defined by the personal collections of the wealthy. He believes museums should be made more accessible and relative to the public. He states that art in museums, "Relates itself quite closely to the life it should be influencing" (Dana). If this is the case I believe he would agree that Graffiti should be displayed in museums since it is relative to a typically disenfranchised group of the populace. I agree as well but I think it should be displayed its natural state. Hiring a graffiti artist to create work on a canvas would take away from the spirit of the craft. For graffiti to simultaneously serve its intended purpose and be displayed in a museum the art itself would have to have been physically removed from where it was originally created. Technically not a crime because the art wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. Of course this creates a voyeuristic quality to the exhibition if the work were housed in a typical American museum. But as an art graffiti has the potential to be enjoyed by the masses and therefore as a testament to this moment in time, should be preserved.   

Blog HW #5

Can graffiti be considered art? Of course it can. Art is a person's escape from reality or expression of emotion or creativity. Graffiti is just an art that is misunderstood, perhaps it's like the "anti-hero" of art. It's not really different but its not really similar to other arts seen in a museum either. Graffiti, which is technically considered "illegal art", which would be one of the few yet main differences; is used to express the artist(s) who made it, which is a main similarity to museum art. It's purpose, other than expressing oneself, from what I've seen is used to mark where you have been and put your name out there even though it's just your street name, you still become known, people will remember your street name. And of course to mark your territory; as I've seen some gang graffiti do, mark what "theirs". Graffiti should be in a museum that is specifically made for that type of art and not in a regular museum like the Met or Guggenheim. My reason for that is, graffiti can be found anywhere you go, its not something entirely unique. Perhaps its design or style is unique or the message it was meant to give but it's not something that deserves to be put in museums for ancient art. Just for museums that are made for urban art.

Blog #5: Is Graffiti Art?

     I do believe that graffiti is art when it comes down to it, I see art as a form of expression amongst many other things. That being said, for the graffiti artist, that's their form of expression. This is clearly present in the documentary “Style Wars”, where many of the teenagers and at times kids where going around the city “bombing” because it was for them. The youth of 1980s expressed themselves through the art of graffiti as well as dance and rap.
    What we see in Museums today, are a wide range of pieces of art. We can go to Museums like the Metropolitan and see commissioned portraits from the 1500s or later to the Guggenheim and see exhibits on futurism and Kandinsky. Graffiti is similar to many of the works of art we see in Museums today, based on the line work and vivid colors used. I'd say an underling purpose of graffiti is to refresh our vision and allow us to see the world in a new way. Like all artist attempt to do constantly, but because graffiti is so frowned upon or causes so much controversy, I feel that that’s the reason it's more refreshing. When a piece of art makes you stop for a look for any reason, then you have a piece that really changes the way you see things.
    Based on the John Cotton Dana essay I'm going to say that graffiti does not belong in museums. Based on what Dana say I find it hard to place pieces of graffiti in museums, there is no place for it. This isn't because I don't like graffiti pieces but rather the way so society is. “Art museum objects were not chosen for their beauty or for the help they might give in developing good taste in the community, but for their rarity, their likeness to objects found in European museums, and for their cost” (3). Pieces of art today aren't necessarily based on looks, especially in NYC. Where museums are based on location and how much money they can make off the community and tourists. People want to surround themselves by art, whether they understand it or not, it's stems back to class. That's why people who can afford to live near museums, do, because of what it says, it says that they are important.

Blog Post #5

Is graffiti art? How is it different or similar to what we saw at the museums we have visited? What is its purpose, according to what we discussed way back in week 1? Based on the John Cotton Dana reading (use quotes), do you think Graffiti should be included in museums and why? (You can add a picture if you want). 200 word minimum, due by Tuesday 5/6 11:59pm.