Showing posts with label graffiti. Show all posts
Showing posts with label graffiti. Show all posts
Graffiti: To save or to Buff?
From Nine MSN:
Everyone seems to be talking about Melbourne's iconic graffiti, which has polarised Australians in the debate over its possible protection by National Trust and Heritage Victoria.
Everyone seems to be talking about Melbourne's iconic graffiti, which has polarised Australians in the debate over its possible protection by National Trust and Heritage Victoria.
World-renowned British street artist Banksy has been quoted as saying Melbourne's laneways are arguably Australia's most significant contribution to the arts since "they" stole all the Aborigine's pencils.
But some local residents beg to differ. It is estimated that graffiti clean-up last year cost Victorian tax payers $400 million, and should infamous alleyways, such as Hosier Lane, gain government protection, spray-painted bins and manga megababes will enjoy higher real estate value than most homes in the area.
National Trust's cultural heritage manager Tracey Avery has stated that "graffiti is a unique part of Melbourne's urban fabric, particularly in our laneways, which attract a huge amount of visitors and contribute to the city's vibrancy". And she's right — a recent online poll conducted by Lonely Planet revealed that Melbourne's street art was voted the nation's most popular cultural attraction.
So do we continue to give the tourists what they want and encourage transient art by protecting it?
Regardless of your opinion on whether it is art or an eyesore, a trip to Melbourne would be incomplete without a visit to these alleyways that are home to this controversial renaissance.
Designer and culture vulture Fiona Sweetman leads expert walks through the area on her Hidden Secrets Tours. Prepare to meet important movers and shakers in the ephemeral arts world, such as her friend Andrew Mac, who runs a gallery called Until Never right in the heart of Hosier Lane. Mac focuses on placing transient art in a permanent setting, and in doing so, inspires street artists whose work, albeit temporary, can lead to sustainable, lasting careers in the art world. And his finger-on-the-pulse relationship with artists and taggers alike make him the go-to for graffiti gossip. You'll probably meet a few would-be Banksys along the way as well; the distinctive sound of a spray-paint container being shaken nearby is a soundtrack in this neighbourhood.
Though some perceive Melbourne's graffiti scene to be occupied entirely by young local thugs, in truth, international artists of some acclaim have been drawn to the alleys off Flinders Street. Parisian artist Fafi and American artist Kill Pixie are two of many overseas names who have left their (illegal?) mark on Melbourne while packing out galleries in Europe and the US.
That said, graffiti is still a crime in Victoria, and according to state laws, offenders risk fines in excess of $27,000 and up to two years in prison.
So the question is, do we keep some street art sites forever? or is the very nature of graffiti transient and therefore sites and artworks should always be renewed?
So the question is, do we keep some street art sites forever? or is the very nature of graffiti transient and therefore sites and artworks should always be renewed?
ARTWORKS NOW AVAILBLE for PURCHASE!
That's right, if you like what you see, you can now purchase original artworks from the 86Kid right here on the blog.
All you have to do is hit the BUY NOW button which takes you straight through to PAYPAL for a secure and easy payment.
All of the paintings, drawings and collages have been completed using high grade materials and a lot of heart and will be shipped straight to you with no dealer mark up, hope you enjoy them. Any questions, just drop me email.
86Kid
Jump over to FLICKR and SEE a whole lot more!
A whole lot of new flix have been added to the 86 Creative Gallery.
The death of Style Wars?
By STEVE DOLLAR
Much more than a cinematic time capsule of New York City in the outlaw days of the early 1980s, the 1983 documentary "Style Wars" was a work of art that reflected the vivid nature of its subject: the streetwise graffiti artists who, for a few years, turned the city's subway cars into mobile canvases of spray-painted invention.
Henry Chalfant, the producer of the ground-breaking 1983 documentary 'Style Wars,' is shown in 1982 next to a wall bearing his own work.
Some officials, like then-Mayor Ed Koch, called it vandalism—and to be sure, not all of the city's rogue spray-painters rose to the mantel of fine art. But the art world quickly embraced these "writers," as the artists called themselves, making international gallery stars out of names like Dondi, Crash, Daze, Lady Pink and Mare 139. The work may have been painted over, but the movement's legacy thrived onscreen, as "Style Wars" became an essential part of New York's visual history.
It's ironic, then, that the film is in danger of fading away. The original 16 mm negatives, housed in the archives of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in Los Angeles, are damaged.
"It's time to bring it back to its best possible light," said Henry Chalfant, who co-produced the film with its late director, Tony Silver. As Mr. Chalfant explained recently, chemicals leeching out from the splicing tape have blurred and distorted the film's frames. "You can fix it digitally, apparently. We're hoping some production house might step forward and do it on an in-kind basis and give us help."
Meanwhile, Mr. Chalfant, now 70, has launched a fund-raising campaign to acquire the $200,000 budget that has been estimated to complete the restoration. He'll jumpstart it Thursday as BAMcinématek hosts two special screenings of the film, with a Q&A session and a reception featuring a reunion of several of the artists featured in "Style Wars"—many of whom were only teenagers when the documentary was shot. Commemorative T-shirts and prints will be sold, and the artist Noc 167 will re-create his original "Style Wars" piece that inspired the film's title, using a 20-foot canvas stretched in front of the Brooklyn Academy of Music's entrance on Lafayette Avenue in downtown Brooklyn.
The graffiti artist Dust, photographed in the Bronx in 1981
"New York was a city on the brink of collapse," said Mare 139, also known as Carlos Rodriguez, who subsequently adapted his graffiti skills to sculpture. "At that moment, this little seed came up. I don't want to quote Claes Oldenberg, but he compared it to a big bouquet from Latin America. We created these colorful narratives of what was happening in the city."
Mr. Koch, an irascible figure in his few brief appearances in the film, still takes issue with that assessment. In a phone interview Tuesday, the former mayor, who now heads the nonprofit government reform organization New York Uprising, said: "Graffiti is graffiti, and it's disgusting and destroys the neighborhood," said. I know that there are some great artists that came out of it, no doubt about it. But at what expense? The expense of destroying—fortunately not permanently—the city of New York."
Mr. Chalfant, who is married to the actress Kathleen Chalfant, wasn't a filmmaker. He was a sculptor and photographer who, by the mid-1970s, had become devoted to taking stills of subway cars adorned in graffiti. He had documented some 850 cars by the time he met Mr. Silver, who thought the rapidly emerging New York hip-hop scene— with its taggers, breakdancers, DJs and MCs—would make for a great movie.
"I was taking the pictures for fun," Mr. Chalfant said. "It never occurred to me to make a film. It was a good collaboration."
Though immersed in the marginalized circle of artists it documents, "Style Wars" captures the beginnings of a subculture that would eventually balloon into a global phenomenon. Looking back, much of what the film depicts seems innocent and full of idealism.
"The atmosphere this culture sprung up in was pretty bleak," Mr. Chalfant said. "At the time, I don't think any of us had any clue about the impact it was going to have on the world. Hip-hop was just coming to people's attention."
As hip-hop has become increasingly commercialized, Mr. Chalfant said his film still resonates with a spirit of social progress. "It all sprang up in the era at the end of the 1960s, so there was an awareness of social injustice," he said. "The kids were inventing something that was stopping the wave of violence that preceded them. Now, of course, kids growing up in the same neighborhoods are targets of marketing strategies to buy the stuff their older brothers and parents invented so it's kind of strange."
Mr. Rodriguez, whose own new exhibit opens Oct. 5 at the Raw Space Gallery in Chelsea, offered an abiding perspective. "It was a catalyst to ask, 'Who are you? And who could you be?'"
End of year Flavour
Wishing you all a Happy New Year for 2010.
This is when that 86Kid is gonna be coming at ya, with fresh new flavours.
Props to my friend Kaylin, nice pic right?
Peace, o' nine is over....
Here's an interesting Topic: Is street art / graffiti art vandalism or should it be considered a right? How free is free speech?
I want to tackle two issues with this entry and hope to obtain feedback from readers. The first-- is street art / graffiti art vandalism or should it be considered a right? The second-- how free is free speech according to the law? Forum Topic:
Is street art / graffiti art vandalism or should it be considered a right?
There has long been a debate concerning illegally placed art on public property. That said, the debate has reached a boiling point in recent months due to Shepard Fairey. I’ve been following Shepard Fairey’s court problems in Boston. The Boston police claim that Fairey illegally posted his artwork on city property in Boston leading up to his exhibit at the ICA and have also brought an outstanding warrant from years ago to the table. Some of the charges have been dropped-- however, Judge Eleanor Coe Sinnott has ruled that Fairey will face 10 counts of felony vandalism charges. Rumor has it that there may be additional charges as well.The case has spurred debate about the validity of illegally placed works of art.
One side feels that illegally placed art should not be considered vandalism and should be considered free speech while the other feels that support for the illegal activity of famous artists, such as Shepard Fairey, will spur others to create art in illegal spaces. Supporters of illegally placed art feel that charging street/graffiti artists with a crime inhibits freedom of speech . Supporters of the law feel that artists should take more responsibility for how they promote themselves and their visual message while acknowledging that public property is just that, public, not the ‘canvas’ for one individual regardless of emotive or aesthetic reasons.
One interesting aspect about this specific case is that Shepard Fairey’s lawyer has stated that the image in question is readily available on the Internet and that anyone could have put the illegally placed works up after downloading the poster in order to paste it or create stencils with it. In fact, Fairey’s www.obeygiant.com offers posters as downloads-- along with warnings about not placing works illegally. Fairey’s lawyer also claims that anyone can buy Obey stickers and that Fairey has no control over how people use them-- which is understandable. However, I think there is more to the story.On obey giant.com Shepard Fairey states, “Please use common sense and consideration when applying stickers or other propaganda materials. Giant is designed to provoke thought about the mechanics of the system we live in…not to destroy it. Everyone has to live here.”. However, Fairey has also posted video clips of his illegally placed works in progress-- including videos of he and his crew fleeing from police. Apparently those videos are no longer available on the site. Thus, one could say that Shepard Fairey is sending a very mixed message to fans and that his lawyer is trying to pin the illegal activity that occurred in Boston on Obey fans-- rather than Shepard Fairey taking responsibility and standing up for his work.The issue of responsibility is at the core of this case. One interesting fact is that members of the street art and graffiti community have spoken out against Shepard Fairey’s actions in Boston.
For example, Joey Krebs who is known as the LA Phantom and Phantom Street Artist has been very critical of Fairey’s actions-- including the commercialization of street art that has been fueled by Obey Giant Art Inc..Krebs suggests that if Fairey truly believed in his visual message he would stand up for his work, admit what he has done, and take responsibility for it-- as most street and graffiti artists do in situations like this. In Krebs opinion the fact that Fairey has blamed the public, specifically fans, for his illegally placed works takes away from his street credibility. That said, the Phantom suggests that Shepard Fairey only has respect within the commercial aspect of the street art / graffiti community. He has stated that without risk-- and accepting risk-- street art and graffiti art is without purpose.As the Phantom Street Artist has pointed out, most street/graffiti artists are not arrested over a dozen times and released so easily. Thus, Krebs feels that Fairey receives ‘get out of jail free cards’ due to his corporate connections and investors. Krebs also suggests that Fairey is speaking the language of corporations and money rather than an authentic message for the masses-- or minority groups that Fairey tends to appropriate images from. In other words, Krebs feels that Fairey is not really a representative of the street art and graffiti art community-- but is instead a representative of the commercialization that has bastardized the movement.It is evident that many street and graffiti artists understand the law and view that as part of the process-- as a part of their history.
In other words, some feel that the commercialization and legalization of all forms of street and graffiti art actually takes away from the movement that so many individuals have taken part in. In a sense, if current illegally places works were to be made legal it would take away from the impact of the works and the message they communicate visually-- in other words it would be a contradiction of the street art and graffiti art movement in general.
With this in mind I would say that most street and graffiti artists do not view their work as vandalism. However, that does not mean they view their work as a right either. In fact, I would say that many would agree that the power of illegally placed work is the fact that the artist is communicating in a way that challenges the law and the limits of free speech. One could suggest that is the very foundation of the movement. In other words, if it becomes lawful for artists to place work anywhere they desire-- if it is considered a right-- doesn’t that mean that both forms of expression would need to be redefined?
What are your thoughts? Should all public property be an outlet for creativity? Should it be a right rather than a form of rebellion?
Forum Topic: How free is free speech?
I always find it interesting when the idea of free speech comes up in cases like this. Shepard Fairey is suggesting that he has a right to free speech concerning where he places his art and also for images that he uses without giving credit or compensation to copyright owners-- what he communicates within his art involving those works. That said, how free is free speech in the first place? We all know that there are some things you simply can’t communicate due to laws and other restrictions.Should all messages, including those that are currently considered to be hate crimes, be free to be spoken verbally or visually in public spaces? My point is that when it comes down to the line there are limitations on freedom of speech no matter how much bravado you display in a court of law or how many sabers you rattle within the art community. Keep in mind that the laws that we have generally reflect the desires of the public. Thus, there will always be limitations and restrictions on free speech even if we don‘t openly admit it. What say you?
The way I see it-- if Shepard Fairey honestly feels that artists should have the right to place works anywhere within the public space and that to restrict artists with laws is an attack on free speech, he should have no problem with street artists placing their work outside his front door-- perhaps on the sidewalk in front of his gallery or in public locations outside of his exhibits at other galleries the same day of his opening. Is that not free speech?Would he welcome street artists who choose to create works questioning his ethics to place their work on public property near his exhibits or near the Obey Giant Art Inc. HQ? If the Phantom Street Artist and others were to pay those public spaces a visit with visual criticism would Fairey welcome them with a wave and a smile? Would Fairey accept that-- I doubt it. So what is he really asking for? Freedom for his own message? Or freedom for all?
www.myartspace.com/forum
Take care, Stay true,
By Brian Sherwin Senior Editor
I want to tackle two issues with this entry and hope to obtain feedback from readers. The first-- is street art / graffiti art vandalism or should it be considered a right? The second-- how free is free speech according to the law? Forum Topic:
Is street art / graffiti art vandalism or should it be considered a right?
There has long been a debate concerning illegally placed art on public property. That said, the debate has reached a boiling point in recent months due to Shepard Fairey. I’ve been following Shepard Fairey’s court problems in Boston. The Boston police claim that Fairey illegally posted his artwork on city property in Boston leading up to his exhibit at the ICA and have also brought an outstanding warrant from years ago to the table. Some of the charges have been dropped-- however, Judge Eleanor Coe Sinnott has ruled that Fairey will face 10 counts of felony vandalism charges. Rumor has it that there may be additional charges as well.The case has spurred debate about the validity of illegally placed works of art.
One side feels that illegally placed art should not be considered vandalism and should be considered free speech while the other feels that support for the illegal activity of famous artists, such as Shepard Fairey, will spur others to create art in illegal spaces. Supporters of illegally placed art feel that charging street/graffiti artists with a crime inhibits freedom of speech . Supporters of the law feel that artists should take more responsibility for how they promote themselves and their visual message while acknowledging that public property is just that, public, not the ‘canvas’ for one individual regardless of emotive or aesthetic reasons.
One interesting aspect about this specific case is that Shepard Fairey’s lawyer has stated that the image in question is readily available on the Internet and that anyone could have put the illegally placed works up after downloading the poster in order to paste it or create stencils with it. In fact, Fairey’s www.obeygiant.com offers posters as downloads-- along with warnings about not placing works illegally. Fairey’s lawyer also claims that anyone can buy Obey stickers and that Fairey has no control over how people use them-- which is understandable. However, I think there is more to the story.On obey giant.com Shepard Fairey states, “Please use common sense and consideration when applying stickers or other propaganda materials. Giant is designed to provoke thought about the mechanics of the system we live in…not to destroy it. Everyone has to live here.”. However, Fairey has also posted video clips of his illegally placed works in progress-- including videos of he and his crew fleeing from police. Apparently those videos are no longer available on the site. Thus, one could say that Shepard Fairey is sending a very mixed message to fans and that his lawyer is trying to pin the illegal activity that occurred in Boston on Obey fans-- rather than Shepard Fairey taking responsibility and standing up for his work.The issue of responsibility is at the core of this case. One interesting fact is that members of the street art and graffiti community have spoken out against Shepard Fairey’s actions in Boston.
For example, Joey Krebs who is known as the LA Phantom and Phantom Street Artist has been very critical of Fairey’s actions-- including the commercialization of street art that has been fueled by Obey Giant Art Inc..Krebs suggests that if Fairey truly believed in his visual message he would stand up for his work, admit what he has done, and take responsibility for it-- as most street and graffiti artists do in situations like this. In Krebs opinion the fact that Fairey has blamed the public, specifically fans, for his illegally placed works takes away from his street credibility. That said, the Phantom suggests that Shepard Fairey only has respect within the commercial aspect of the street art / graffiti community. He has stated that without risk-- and accepting risk-- street art and graffiti art is without purpose.As the Phantom Street Artist has pointed out, most street/graffiti artists are not arrested over a dozen times and released so easily. Thus, Krebs feels that Fairey receives ‘get out of jail free cards’ due to his corporate connections and investors. Krebs also suggests that Fairey is speaking the language of corporations and money rather than an authentic message for the masses-- or minority groups that Fairey tends to appropriate images from. In other words, Krebs feels that Fairey is not really a representative of the street art and graffiti art community-- but is instead a representative of the commercialization that has bastardized the movement.It is evident that many street and graffiti artists understand the law and view that as part of the process-- as a part of their history.
In other words, some feel that the commercialization and legalization of all forms of street and graffiti art actually takes away from the movement that so many individuals have taken part in. In a sense, if current illegally places works were to be made legal it would take away from the impact of the works and the message they communicate visually-- in other words it would be a contradiction of the street art and graffiti art movement in general.
With this in mind I would say that most street and graffiti artists do not view their work as vandalism. However, that does not mean they view their work as a right either. In fact, I would say that many would agree that the power of illegally placed work is the fact that the artist is communicating in a way that challenges the law and the limits of free speech. One could suggest that is the very foundation of the movement. In other words, if it becomes lawful for artists to place work anywhere they desire-- if it is considered a right-- doesn’t that mean that both forms of expression would need to be redefined?
What are your thoughts? Should all public property be an outlet for creativity? Should it be a right rather than a form of rebellion?
Forum Topic: How free is free speech?
I always find it interesting when the idea of free speech comes up in cases like this. Shepard Fairey is suggesting that he has a right to free speech concerning where he places his art and also for images that he uses without giving credit or compensation to copyright owners-- what he communicates within his art involving those works. That said, how free is free speech in the first place? We all know that there are some things you simply can’t communicate due to laws and other restrictions.Should all messages, including those that are currently considered to be hate crimes, be free to be spoken verbally or visually in public spaces? My point is that when it comes down to the line there are limitations on freedom of speech no matter how much bravado you display in a court of law or how many sabers you rattle within the art community. Keep in mind that the laws that we have generally reflect the desires of the public. Thus, there will always be limitations and restrictions on free speech even if we don‘t openly admit it. What say you?
The way I see it-- if Shepard Fairey honestly feels that artists should have the right to place works anywhere within the public space and that to restrict artists with laws is an attack on free speech, he should have no problem with street artists placing their work outside his front door-- perhaps on the sidewalk in front of his gallery or in public locations outside of his exhibits at other galleries the same day of his opening. Is that not free speech?Would he welcome street artists who choose to create works questioning his ethics to place their work on public property near his exhibits or near the Obey Giant Art Inc. HQ? If the Phantom Street Artist and others were to pay those public spaces a visit with visual criticism would Fairey welcome them with a wave and a smile? Would Fairey accept that-- I doubt it. So what is he really asking for? Freedom for his own message? Or freedom for all?
www.myartspace.com/forum
Take care, Stay true,
By Brian Sherwin Senior Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)