Aside from the argument about the hyper-masculinity of a lot of street art (and, by definition, the culture that surrounds it), I disagree with much of the rest of this piece. Graffiti is by and large still a platform for expression for young people - particularly those who are marginalised. A lot of it is indeed pretty ugly, but so also is the message.
Alas, David Lynch - that stalwart of surrealist art - is now condemning of it too.
From Jonathan Jones (yes, I know that's how he rolls) for the guardian:
The vast majority of graffiti is ugly, stupid and vaguely threatening. A tiny portion of it is witty or creative. It is the dreck, not the rough diamond art, that most of us encounter most of the time. And we have learned to put on a forced grin and tell ourselves it is the look of our time.
Graffiti is a pretentious subcultural backbeat that is replicated everywhere in much the same style, the same chunky lettering and coded messages. It is boring and expresses a generalised contempt for community, kindness, and the weak. How can leftists like this stuff? After all it is so blatantly hypermasculine, aggressive and destructive of people’s desire for a decent environment. It is in fact proof that men are still in charge of the world. There is far more creativity and craft in, say, crochet but because that is traditionally seen as a “feminine” activity no one bends over backwards to praise it as art. But graffiti, associated as it is with alienated young men, is treated with absurd reverence by people who should know better.
So congratulations to Mr Lynch. He knows how to aim a grouch. It was high time someone stood up to the vile oppression that is graffiti.
-- source (posted via feedly/ ifttt)
Image: A stencil and spray paint work, attributed to Banksy, in London, 2011. Photograph: Jim Dyson/Getty Images.
The post “Graffiti is ugly, stupid and threatening – there’s more creativity in crochet” appeared first on feimineach.com.
