The Life and Times of a Graffiti Artist

I thought it would be interesting to address graffiti's growing status as a means of expression in the art world. Some people may scoff and call it low art, but there is no denying that it is rapidly gaining popularity. Banksy (who, if you can't tell by now, is one of my idols) can sell a piece for hundreds of thousands of dollars, but still chooses to go out on the streets at night to spray paint modern day Mona Lisa's. What street art has accomplished is the opening up of art to the masses, making the streets into a virtual (art) gallery. Art is no longer just for the wealthy anymore, but for the working man as well. Be you a businessman or homeless person, anyone who walks past a bit of street art can appreciate it.

I'll end with a section taken from Banksy's "Wall and Piece" on the subject of graffiti…

"I'm going to speak my mind, so this won't take very long.

Despite what they say graffiti is not the lowest form of art. Although you might have to creep about at night and lie to your mum it's actually one of the more honest art forms available. There is no elitism or hype, it exhibits on the best walls a town has to offer and nobody is put off by the price of admission.

A wall has always been the best place to publish your work.

The people who run our cities don't understand graffiti because they think nothing has the right to exist unless it makes a profit, which makes their opinions worthless.

They say graffiti frightens people and is symbolic of the decline in society, but graffiti is only dangerous in the mind of three types of people; politicians, advertising executives and graffiti writers.

 The people who truly deface our neighborhoods are the companies that scrawl giant slogans across buildings and buses trying to make us feel inadequate unless we buy their stuff. They expect to be able to shout their message in your face from every available surface but you're never allowed to answer back. Well, they started the fight and the wall is the weapon of choice to hit them back.

Some people become cops because they want to make the world a better place. Some people become vandals because they want to make the world a better looking place." -Banksy

                                                   

The Final Frontier (or Lack There Of)

Modernists often defy traditionalists with their works as they seek to open up the general definition of art. The traditionalists of course see this as threatening to society at large, because if humans were free to do whatever they desired, chaos would reign. I think the solution to the two opposing viewpoints is to synthesize a new view on art, one that respects the old ways but builds upon them in an organic way to create something that fills contemporary. That being said, the greater narrative of art has seemingly ended in as much as there are no rules to dictate what is created. This may seem scary at first (as I'm sure the traditionalists would agree), but the idea of an open-ended view of art provides us boundless opportunities for expression (be they personal or cultural). Who knows what exciting things can spring forth from such a climate? So, I leave you with this question. Has the last frontier been tamed (in regards to art)?

"Street Art Created by the Graffiti Artist Space Invader"

The Rise and Fall of Genius

Kant had an instrumental role in defining modern aesthetics, but he also had a specific view of genius as well. To him, genius takes the place of rules (or even becomes the rules). That being said, genius without taste leads to what Kant defines as "original nonsense." One cannot become a genius out of sheer force of will, he/she must have genius inherent within them from the start. In other words, genius can only be discovered, not created. Kant warns to be careful though not to confuse genius with simple talent, as talent is merely the capacity to do something. The idea of genius extends far beyond talent, allowing an artist to express aesthetic ideas that carries us beyond ourselves. So, who would you consider a genius? How far can a genius go before they stray into creating original nonsense?

 

"Is 'Yeezus' (Kanye West) Genius, or just Original Nonsense?"

A World of Pure Imagination

During the course, we discussed how imagination and art are intertwined with each other. The human imagination needs art, or rather takes on the form of art, to make its expression more concrete. Without the imagination, people would merely drudge through their daily routine and have duller existences. Art is humanity's way to escape the blandness of life, answering an inherent need within us for expression. In art, there is a sense of play that we often lack which allows us to create a seemingly endless amount of possibilities. So, should we not work hard to foster that creativity? Can humans experience a full and happy life without art?

"Pure Imagination" from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

The Aesthetics of T.M.C.

While it has become a running joke that Thomas More College's Academic Building is the ugliest building in existence, it actually has an interesting architectural and aesthetic story.  If you have any knowledge of the history of architecture, TMC is actually pretty interesting.  The main academic building was built in 1968 and actually can be seen as a bit of a transitional piece.  The style that first comes to mind is probably "Brutalism", a style popular in the early 70s known for its emphasis on heavy imposing building, using a lot of concrete.  The best example of this is probably the NKU's 1972 Nunn Hall.

Notice the minimal windows, brutalism was not meant to be inviting but imposing.

Now compare this with TMC's main building, built only 4 years prior.  

Certainly the scale of TMC was much smaller, but it also shows a few influences from mid-century modern, such as the distinctive roof on the library that seemingly floats on glass.  Mid century modern architecture often emphasized unique angles and seemingly gravity defying architecture that is seen here.  The architects of TMC actually were honored for their work! Here is an interesting article about their intentions with the buildings' designs....

http://puka.cs.waikato.ac.nz/cgi-bin/cic/library?a=d&d=p1714

The Tacky Joys of Show Choir

"Tackiness" it seems to be a phrase we throw around a lot.  I myself am completely guilty of this(especially when i am describing a certain color being painted in a certain college building), but it really is something that is up to interpretation.  One form of entertainment that is undeniably tacky is the competition art that is show choir.  I had the privilege of doing show choir for 2 years in high school and it always was a blast.

Me during my senior year of H.S. can you find me among all the sequins?

Is tacky always aesthetically displeasing? I don't think this is necessarily the case! After all tacky is a very subjective term.  There is a certain joy that comes with something colorful, brash and cheesy.  Movie musicals, corny comedies, and variety television can make us all smile. Maybe "tackiness" is just be a word for fun art that doesn't make you think.

Jeff Lynne and The Electric Light Orchestra

One of rock's unsung heroes (in my opinion) is Jeff Lynne a British producer/musician who is best known for leading the prog rock/symphonic rock/art rock/pop rock band Electric Light Orchestra(or E.L.O.) If you don't think you've heard of E.L.O. before listen to the song "Mr. Blue Sky", its been featured in numerous movies and commercials.

Other famous hits include "Evil Woman" and "Don't Bring Me Down".  Jeff Lynne surprising actually cannot read music and actually plays and arranges everything by ear, which is impressive when one thinks of the lush orchestral arrangements of E.L.O..  I certainly am of the opinion the Jeff Lynne should be considered a modern genius, thought E.L.O. is dismissed by rock critics as fluffy and "not real rock" many of their innovations are still seen today, such overdubbed vocals, heavy synth work, and laser lights at concerts.  But what makes Lynne even more remarkable is that as a producer and writer his work is prolific.  He has produced such great figures as George Harrison, Tom Petty (including the hit "Free Falling"), and even Regina Spektor.  He also was a memebr of the remarkable 1980s "super group" The Traveling Wilburys.  It is interesting that someone who has contributed so much to the world of music is relatively unknown to most people. I leave you with one of my favorite tracks by E.L.O. the dance beat infused "Sweat Talking Woman"...

Any thoughts?

Art As a Gateway to the Sacred

In the two millennia that Christianity has existed, art has played an ever vital role in the lives of the faithful.  Christian art developed early in the history of the church, with symbols, such as fish or lamb to  represent Christ and/or Christian communities.  However, once Christianity became an established religion, the world of Christian art exploded.  Many fine pieces of this early art remain today, such as mosaics and stain glass windows.  These impressive depictions were created to transport the worshiper from an earthly state to a divine experience, or heaven on earth.  Something we are all very familiar with, cathedrals, are considered to be some of the most impressive structures built to this day and they themselves are considered artwork. These churches were filled with statues and stained glass, not only to create a celestial atmosphere, but also to tell as story.  During the middle ages, an overwhelming majority of the population was illiterate, therefore churches began to teach through art.  These statues and stained glass are meant to tell the story of the Old Testament, Christ, and Church doctrine, making it easier for people to understand their religious beliefs.  I find religious art to be a fascinating addition to the art world.  It serves such an important role in the church and in many ways allows people to strengthen their faith.

Blog #12 Nov. 19th

Cultural Differences
      If there is one thing this course has made me do, that would be thinking about how other cultures differ from our own.  In what ways are they different than us?  What structure do they have for society?  How do they view things there in an aesthetic sense?  It is important to learn about other cultures because they give us a new window of opportunity of viewing other people.  I would like to see how those people see things like Worhols and Picassos.  Would these just be colorful confusing artworks, or would they see a universal meaning?  Would these people view these things and see something instantaneously without even thinking about it?  These are the things that could define someone as a genius.  Producing a universal image that is aesthetically pleasing to an audience, any audience.  Moving people from different: political, racial, geographic, and cultural backgrounds into seeing something they can understand even speaking another language.  Is this wrong?  My definition of genius at least?...any comments/suggestions?  

Blog #11 Nov. 7th

We had talked about a lot of different things in these couple weeks of class and still talking about the idea of genius and how one can be genius; whether it lies in the conscious or unconscious part of our mind.  I could say that I am a genius and it could mean nothing because in most ways I could not prove it, while an artist could display their skills and ability by creating something brilliant.  However, does that make them a genius?  If producing an amazing piece of artwork does not constitute you as a genius, then what does?  To be considered as one, you cannot be aware of it or try to create a certain thing because it would attract others...you have to do it because you do it (being guided or inspired to do a certain thing could give you the title of being a genius).  Not many people are satisfied with a piece that is an "original" (which might be why Sun Ra gained attention...but I digress).  People always want brand new and things never seen before.  People are trying though to give people what they want and in turn it is conscious of what they want to produce rather than letting it come naturally to them (unconscious).  If you ask me, I know who is a genius....Bob Ross (you may know him as the "happy tree" guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MghiBW3r65M

So is this guy a genius because he does his work frrr flowing with little thought at all?  You tell me.

Blog #10 October 31st

I'm an avid country fan...VCDC was not country.  I didn't know what to expect when I walked into the room.  I was really thrown off when things started to actually play together and flow.  I was shocked at how such weird noises could mash together and create such an interesting sound that was actually aesthetically pleasing to my ears.  I liked the abstract approach you have to take to listen to the music because it makes you realize how mainstream music is...I doubt they'll be making a VCDC based radio station anytime soon.   Nevertheless, I loved the complex sounds and atmosphere that they brought with their music because the audience acted differently than any concert I had ever been to.  My question would be what do we consider music and where is the line of what is and is not music?  What line do we draw?  This is an interesting thought because it would challenge possibly what VCDC is doing and the composition of songs.

Blog #9 October 24th

Sun Ra
      My dear god, we watched the Sun Ra video(s) in class and the guy was an absolute nut case!  His music was something nobody had ever seen and claimed he was from another planet come to shed his influence on everyone of Earth.  People enjoyed it because it was a statement and most people thought it was a black rights movement, this was not the case.  Although I don't enjoy the music, at all, I liked very much how humble he was about not needing to go to a bigger audience.  Sun Ra's documentary was really interesting thinking in the sense of being aesthetic  because they were all thinking about and trying out new methods, sounds, and genres of music.  It just amazes me that he made such an impact as an entertainer and an individual because he was so weird and outlandish with his music.  He was very consistent, very serious, and very passionate.  All about the cosmos and showing people a new way to view the reality we built up for ourselves. To me, that is very aesthetically pleasing.  I watched a few minuted of his movie "Space is the Place"....just...wow.  Pretty interesting though.

Blog #8 Oct. 17th

In class we talked about the components of genius...this tied with the topic of the week very ironically to me.  Egocentric artists are a real problem as we see that the up-and-coming artists are basically in it for the fame and money that comes along with their talents.  Talent is probably the best word for the ones that use their skill set to make profit off of it while the ones with the GIFT use it to take their style and revolutionize the way we (the general audience) views it.  By using their genius to change lives and viewpoints, pay should be irrelevant, as the master motive should be forever the way their audience views their work.  If they use their genius to produce a work of art that is reproduced for hundreds of years, or viewed and protected, then they probably lived the right way and used their gift in the right sense.  If an artist says they are genius, however, it creates a stir and makes others stereotype what genius is.  So then what exactly is genius? Is it ability, is it knowledge, is it a way of life?  Can someone be a genius if it is a conscious thing for them, or rather, is in an unconscious reality that comes about from their style of artwork?  I would personally like to think that it is all unconscious, but you never really know with artists these days.

This quote made me laugh thinking about artists that say they are in touch with genius:
“I'm a misunderstood genius."
"What's misunderstood?"
"Nobody thinks I'm a genius.” 
      --Bill Watterson

Blog #7 Oct. 8th

Picasso
We watched the Picasso video in class and what bothered me was the part where it shows him drawing a "masterpiece" on a translucent page so we could see the exact steps it took to get the finished product.  I'm not saying that the artwork he produced wasn't amazing and historical, however, I was not impressed to see how quickly he created an image and it looked somewhat cool.  His finished product in the video was not impressive to me.  That being said, we protect artists like him as if he had properties of a god.  This is a little bit too much for me to comprehend.  In my opinion, Pablo Picasso's works were somewhat of a cognitive overload for anyone looking at them.  The figures were very complex as well as the color he used to express the images.  This, to me, is something that makes art ugly or unappealing.  I have been yelled at multiple times for referring to his paintings as "cognitive overload" and said I can't respect good artwork.  I disagree (of course) because if it doesn't do anything to me aesthetically, then there is nothing I can really do to change the way that I view it.  If anyone says Picasso's works are better than Leonardo da Vinci's...we can have a nice discussion about it outside class.
I apologize, but this is just too much cognitive load for my brain to enjoy
 

Blog #6 Oct. 1st

There was a chapter of Scharfstein that was very interesting about artists leaving their mark on the work that they do.  Sometimes a piece is worth way more money if it has their mark on it while some artists in the chapter protested putting their names on a piece because it took away from the sentimental value if others just idolized it because of the price.  These people were considered to be "anonymous craftsmen" and stayed true to what they believed in...their art and their morality.  This is respectable because art should be popular because it is aesthetically pleasing to an individual, not because all of his/her friends are buying the pieces.  This reminded me of the conversation we had in class about the guys who bought Andy Worhol paintings and defended why they bought them.  The snarky British critic was hysterical in his explanation of the Worhols they bought seeing them as simple pieces anyone could create made out of materials we all use.  It is people like that who keep the art business going because they make a big deal out of famous artists and basically determine what is "good art" and what is not.  That is a sad realization because it takes away from the true passionate artists that are being overlooked.  Should we just sit back and let this happen or move to have more artists that are content with being anonymous?
        I would personally like to have marks/names taken off famous works and see if regular people could identify who they were created by as well as identify the true meaning behind the work....that would be comical I'm sure.

Blog #5 Sept. 24th

Our class discussion made me consider a lot of things about the artworld.  I never considered people making millions of dollars on copies or even just taking up a style similar to a famous artist and calling it their own.  I honestly feel like it must happen more often than not and that is degrading to  the original artist who built up such a portfolio that made people desire their pieces of work.  My real question is...is it still considered a work of art if it was in a style that another artist created?  What makes a piece artwork then?  It shouldn't have to be an original because it still got inspiration and still has an alternative meaning right?  How will we tell if it was a fake or not if you've never heard of the artist to begin with.  (Example: an up and coming artist has forgeries all over after his/her pieces were released to the public and begins getting popular).  Is that a sign of popularity that the pieces were reproduced or a sign of disrespect?  To me, it is taking away money from the artist but you should not be in art for selling their works.  So yes, it is a sign of respect to have your work reproduced and advertised, even though it is unfair.

This article was very interesting to show some of the top forgerie artists.  People that can make a living off the popularity of another...crazy. Maybe we should all just do this.
http://www.livescience.com/19518-famous-art-forgers.html

Blog #4 Sept. 17

“Sometimes people are beautiful.
Not in looks.
Not in what they say.
Just in what they are.” 
--Mark Zusak

Is this the same for artwork? because we see each other in this sense, do we see them that way because of the clothes or the makeup (which could equally be considered art and in turn...beauty (or enhancing agents for beauty purposes).  This is a timeless argument that I constantly think people on a daily basis.  When you take a girl out and she doesn't have make up on...some would consider her less attractive, however, this is what artists do with paintings.  They put more things on a canvas to bring out an underlying image that could otherwise be overlooked.  Let that be the paint on a canvas, just like make up, it causes us to see something in another way than we regularly would (no make up on a face compared to a blank canvas for a painter).  Or should be be judging beauty of a work of art in the meaning, underlying message, or statement it's trying to stand for (which would be like saying we respect someone because of their support of fighting breast cancer) Can a piece of artwork be beautiful because it does this?  Like an add of some sort.  I don't know; the discussion in class was very interesting and included something along these lines.  Just food for thought.

Is Warhol's Art Worth its Weight in Wigs?

In class we watched the clip of a critic addressing Warhol's works, and there were definitely no punches pulled. He claimed that Warhol was among one of the stupidest people he had ever met, and questioned why anyone would wish to by into such nonsense. Now, I personally like Warhol as he helped to usher in the age of pop art and change the artistic climate of the time. He also inspired many other artists that had a great effect on contemporary music, most notably David Bowie and the Velvet Underground. So you may hate Warhol and his soup cans, but can you deny that the likes of Bowie and the Velvet Underground must have seen something in his work to be admired? Without Warhol, there is no Ziggy Stardust or "Walk on the Wild Side." You do  not have to enjoy his art, but I at least ask you to consider its significance. I believe the world would be a much more boring place if Andy Warhol had never donned the white wig, and that would have been a tragedy indeed.

Below is the song Bowie wrote about Andy Warhol, which appeared on his brilliant third album Hunky Dory.

Blog #3 Sept. 10th

Art as displeasing or ugly/grotesque to your eyes.
       If you can see art as ugly and another person believes the artwork is beautiful, there shows a falisie that proves it is an individual's viewpoint that can be argued.  Does it then just depend on how we view it?  I would argue that the way we view a piece of art depends on how we view our own personal reality.  What may be real to us may not be the same for one of our neighbors who sees it as something completely different.  The same then is in pieces art.  I may see every piece by Leonardo da Vinci as a masterpiece while the person looking at the same piece could think the images are too graphic or find a piece upsetting.  How do we then appreciate something that we call art.  Is buying the piece the true definition of appreciating it?  How do we truly appreciate a piece then?...staring at it for hours doesn't really sound like a justifiable answer.
Example: I find Leonardo da Vinci's early paintings of old and tattered faces as a brilliant side of an artist that can draw beautiful and angelic faces as well as people experiencing pain, capturing it in a photograph.
Some people see this picture as unapealing and unfinished while it could be the exact opposite of that...it is a beautiful piece showing an emotion.

Blog #2 Sept. 3rd

How can we look at art?  Is it something hanging up on a wall with a frame, an object we have to stare at for hours just to figure out a reason it was made.  Does it need a reason to be created.  In that case...why was it created?  My biggest interest is this:  What makes food art (culinary).  Do we need to design food for it to be considered an art.  Is our appreciation for the art left to our eyes, or our taste buds.  The satisfaction of our brain considering something artistic could be left up to the visual or the sensation of devouring something delicious.  Food has always confused me looking at it from an aesthetic viewpoint.