All the discussions we’ve been having about “taste” and “aesthetics” got me thinking about graffiti and what it could be classified as. Now, to prove to you my qualifications to make this classification, I will let you know that I have never studied any sort of art history, nor would I consider myself an art buff; I did complete a semester of Photography I, but these days, who hasn’t? So, with my lack of credentials, I wonder if graffiti is a high-class art form.
On dictionary.com, the word “art” is defined as, “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.” With that in mind, that would be my first reason why graffiti would be considered an art form, because it is filled with expression, and more often than not, the graffiti is providing a message to be seen which gives it significance. Take a look at some of this London graffiti artist’s work here. Isn’t the point of any sort of art to provoke thought? This artist’s displays are open to questioning. Another point I would like to make is that museums are hosting exhibits with graffiti. I believe back in 2006, the Brooklyn museum had an exhibit dedicated to graffiti. Even in France, FoundationCartier is showing graffiti, which to me is a big deal, because in my eyes, France is an art capital especially because of the Louvre.
If graffiti is being shown in museums, I can’t help but think that it should be considered high culture. I think what bothers me the most is that not all art is considered to be cultural. Everyone experiences Art differently, and as lame as it sounds, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” I don’t care what the upper class has to say about what would define high culture, as long as something moves us, that has to be culture at its finest.
No comments:
Post a Comment