Two graffiti crews descended on Renzo Piano's recent expansion to the Art Institute of Chicago. While some might consider street art an appropriate addition to the Modern Wing, the museum didn't think so, promptly erasing the spray paint.
Two graffiti crews descended on Renzo Piano's recent expansion to the Art Institute of Chicago. While some might consider street art an appropriate addition to the Modern Wing, the museum didn't think so, promptly erasing the spray paint. The Architect's Newspaper
24 Comments
i am conflicted; first as a statement against elitist institutions this kind of "work" would "seem" appropriate, but the kind of work that is needed is not the kind of "work" that was perpetrated. there are hundreds of artists more worthy of being able to level a "critique" that would really stick for example Blu or Banksy or anybody from Wooster and a more cogent argument. this "work" however, is tantamount to your mom walking into a jackson pollock show, and proclaiming, my kid can do that.
The problem with graffiti is not the idiots that do it but the judges and art school types that allow it. Judges dont push for prison time, and it should be a felony after the first offense. Graffiti is not just writing on a wall it is a social attack and can absolutely destroy a street and businesses. It might be $5000 worth of damage to the wall but the psychological effect is unmeasurable as people decide to not frequent those areas. Plus graffiti is so 1970s - doesn't this generation have anything unique to contribute? Didnt think so.
This actually does get to the heart of the problem, doesn't it? Spray-painted textual name-based graffiti is pretty tired (interesting new takes such as those listed by beta above are different).
No, they aren't, they are still vandalism and should be prosecuted to the fullest extant possible and hopefully further when and if stricter laws get passed. If I robbed you with a flamethrower rather than a gun or stole your money via electronic fraud versus hold up it doesn't make it any less of a crime nor does it change the act of vandalism to art. If you've ever lived in a city during a death sprial you wouldn't find the destruction of private and public property so amusing nor if you had to pay for it's removal.
"there are hundreds of artists more worthy of being able to level a 'critique' that would really stick for example Blu or Banksy or anybody from Wooster and a more cogent argument."
Can you be serious? Your assessment of worthiness doesn't count, homes, that is the point - and whether or not the style is tired is also irrelevant. It is a tired style in 7ft tall letters painted 50ft long on the side of the AIC, thats the point. It IS vandalism, it IS a F*** you to the establishment, it IS revolutionary - its not called 'bombing' for nothing.
And if my mom looks at a Jackson Pollock and says 'my kid can do that', I hope she also throws some free hor d'oeuvres and freixenet at it - and then at you. And I got news for you too, Ma - Jackson Pollock sucks!
uh, it's holmes not homes.
spit on street with my sig next to it has more value than this shit. it's tagging, not graffiti, it's not revolutionary, it will provoke nothing, it's not a convincing anything. fuck it's not even punk. it's a bunch of drivel.
2step, I did live in a city where I had to wash graffiti - just single-colored tags, actually - off the stop signs in my neighborhood frequently, off my own house a few times. I'm of the opinion that tagging private property is absolutely wrong - it's vandalism.
But I'm also of the opinion that so much of our built environment is shitty that it offers the opportunity to be improved via paint and color - if it's in the form of a well-done tag, fine. Things like the blank concrete cheek walls of highway on-ramps are publicly owned yet so unconsidered aesthetically. Why shouldn't community members feel they can improve what they have to look at every day - if it's publicly owned?
The Museum doesn't fall into that category. Its blank wall *is* considered and intentional, and shouldn't be defaced.
And ultimately for me the question is quality: the tags in the linked article are very mediocre, though better than what I used to wash of stop signs, and not saying anything more than "I defaced this". The work of Banksy and others is just more engaging on higher levels. Plus we have technology now to do electronic tagging and other small acts of public art that are far less obvious thus far more interesting - spray paint is old-fashioned.
drive by comment: liberty bell is right, 2step is wrong.
I really dont think you have much of say 675. Im a paying member at the AIC and your making punk comments on an anonymous message board.
I am a paying member of the AIC also, for many years...and its 'homes' as in 'homeboy'. Not punk, Like punk rock? Too much college, homes. How do you spell 'insipid' and 'lightweight'? - b3tadine[sutures], you have over 6000 comments on this site! Could you possibly have 6000 things to say, or is it more akin to crappy graffiti on a message board? And provokes nothing? Maybe it didn't provoke you, with your 6000 comments, you pop off at anything, but it provoked Liberty Bell. Wait, Liberty Bell has 11,000 comments! Do you guys call in AM radio, too?
Honestly, questions of style ignore the other considerations of graf bombing - hit and run, don't get caught, bragging rights in the community, and pissing off squares. "I defaced this" is very much part of the idea, and writing 'modern art' over the piece is sarcasm, get it?
I'm outta here. But before I go - NORTHCIDE!!! northCIDE!!! NEVER CHASE RABBITS!
ugh...Holmes
1. Holmes
Gangster slang. What you would call a good friend, a stranger, or even mockery against an adversary.
Was`sup, holmes.
You got a problem with it, holmes?
eh, perhaps i'm lightweight, but i know quality vs. shit, any day of the week...that holmes, is merde.
pissing off squares, oh, now i get it; you're 12 years old. do your work asshat, most, if not all call this shit tagging and not graffiti. it's rank crap.
Urban Dictionary? A humor website? Use that as reference on your research papers, I bet. Now who's 12? This is what the real dictionary says about it:
Main Entry: 2graffiti
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian, plural of graffito
Date: 1945
: usu. unauthorized writing or drawing on a public surface.
Crap,it may though it maybe, its graffiti. tagging, bombing, throw up, fill-in, scratching 'yo mama' in a desk, all graffiti.
and here:
Main Entry: home·boy
Pronunciation: \ˈhōm-ˌbȯi\
Function: noun
Date: 1927
1 : a boy or man from one's neighborhood, hometown, or region
2 : a fellow member of a youth gang
3 : an inner-city youth
That 1927 homes!
<i>"Meanwhile, if we want to be respected as artists, we must respect other artists. This isn’t just another building, it’s a work of art in itself. This could be said theoretically about any building, but this new building in particular is an acclaimed piece by an architect known world wide (Renzo Piano). So then what does it mean to write “This is our Modern Art” on a Modern Art building housing thousands of pieces of “real” art? For one it helped me realize for the first time my responsibility as a writer who also practices art. It’s beyond the point of debate – graffiti will be discussed as a real movement of art for a long time coming. It’s things like this however that will help to push it out of the oldschool way of thinking and into the new school appreciation. Whether you like it or not this is a pivotal point in graffiti history."</i>
hahahahaahah - right ON!
surprised the AIC wasn't better protected. you'd think they'd know better. chalk one up to the home team.
that may be all olde skool 1927 and shit, yo, but...seeing as how we's dealin in all things urban, my friends hanging on tha corner, in jersey city, bustin rhymes say, holmes.
it's clear, neither the writer of the piece cited above, nor the idiotic, infantile douche nuggets, have ever been to the Met. there's nothing new to see here, in fact there's nothing to see there either.
6000 posts in 6 years = 3 posts a day on average
so far suford, you are matching me in speed, good on ya.
2step - I say what I want, and so do you. And so do these kids spraying shit on Piano's wall. They didn't get caught, they got away with it. It's just colors on the wall, it's not hurting anybody, and it's certainly not destroying society. Calm down.
The smartest thing you said, that liberty bell and I both agree with, is that it's totally 1970s, it's not even that innovative stylistically.
Also - my name's on my profile, I ain't anonymous, chump.
the thing that kills me here is the argument for acceptance--you can;t argue that "squares" don't have the capability to critique/deride graffiti while at the same time arguing that it's revolutionary. I'm sure you'll dispute this, but that's an argument for acceptance, and you can't argue for acceptance when you're whole point is a "f you" to the establishment.
And beyond that, I still think graffiti is only a legitimate work of art or act of revolution in the cases that LB pointed out. When it's tagging, or as is so often the case the trust-funded children of the establishment who are producing graffiti and buying Bansky books, I think you lose a lot of the credibility about it being any sort of "f you" to the establishment. When it is the work of a member of the community, and especially when it's not an individualistic claim, I think it's a valid means of re-appropriation.
I've think I've proven myself sufficiently square now.
675 if you call me chump or any other name I will not hesitate to report you to Archinect under the new policies. There is no need for name calling because you cant defend your tired position.
I'd like to point out that vandalism is beyond nothing new.
Find an old roman wall that hasn't been painted and has been protected from the elements... and you find a bunch of drawings of genitalia, limericks and gossip about who is taking it up the rear end.
Fast forward 1500 years. Why were 'fashionable' people in England buying diamond rings? To scratch love notes and other things into soda glass.
The issue here is two things... permanence and demonetization.
1) People should be asking if graffiti is such a problem, why isn't anyone attacking the companies who make enamel spray paint?
Really, we should just admit this is a battle that can't be won. We should be pushing companies and retailers to start making and carrying a tempera-based or chalk-based temporary aerosol paint.
That way people can still tag. No real damage is done and if any "street art" is exceptionally good... someone can shellac it to preserve it.
2) There is a definite gang aspect here that needs to be addressed. But part of graffiti is about neighborhood and cultural identity-- certain kinds of buildings will almost never be defaced.
So, when someone uses architecture to "make a statement," the way they make a statement in by intruding architecturally. We could call this "urban scale graffiti." In that sense, it invites retaliation. This is predominately where that whole "architecture is war" concept gains validation.
When context collides, someone always loses.
Unfortunately, spray paint is much cheaper than travertine and Renzo.
FLM - although LB is performing her due diligence as a designer and connoisseur, i think the position she and you are advocating is missing the bigger picture
innovation is fab, sure, but this is an environmental issue now - graffiti is part of the urban ecology, if you will. wishing it would be more sophisticated is like lamenting the color of the sky, and about as effective. seems more realistic (and less boo-zshwah) to accept it as political conflict rather than a "design opportunity missed or gone wrong"
montag-know - is the futility all that bad? relish the collision. life in the big city would be pretty bland without these kinds of dynamic flourishes, no? for those that disagree, there's always Singapore...
the "urban ecology"
"dynamic flourishes"
"urban scale graffiti"
"permanence and demonetization"
"re-appropriation"
I could go on...but really, have we devolved to the point we are inventing words and ideas for no other reason than to pretend reality doesn't exist or is it a reaction against the words you have available to you in the Websters dictionary?
We dont need to invent terms like "dynamic flourishes" to explain vandalism nor to define a word already well defined: graffiti. Sometimes I think architects only talk this way because they are bored.
Sticks and stones, 2step, sticks and stones ...
wow, this is amazing!? I've never seen so many people get worked up over such a seemingly harmless topic. I'm having a hard time understanding how you could draw such a hard line on this? Approaching it from a 'realistic' perspective is important, but reality is subjective, and so is the perceived impact of graft on society and your immediate surroundings. I would put forward that many people find advertisements and billboards to be ugly, tired, bored, lame, whatever, and I find them more offensive than someone spraying their name on the side of a wall. Maybe it's because I don't own any walls, or perhaps it's because I think that the spray paint comes from something more sincere or real, (regardless of its ugliness).
What I do know is that I am able to find beauty in so many things and occasionally graffiti is one of them. Admittedly most of it is crap, but isn't that the case with everything? If you didn't have all the crap around how would you know what was amazing? (disclaimer: I'm not defending crap...)
It reminds me of a lecture in my Spatial Comp class last semester. The professor showed a slide of Gehry's Bilbao Museum in Barcelona. It was in context, and sat there at the end of the block shining in all its glory. On the next slide, he had pasted in dozens of Bilbao's lining the street and immediately the one at the end just blended in and disappeared into the masses. Regardless of your opinion about this building, I'm sure you get my point. (hint: I'm not saying Barcelona's ugly)
Talking back and forth about whether graffiti is good or bad won't get you anywhere. As someone mentioned, it has been happening for millenia, and will continue to happen as long as people feel their voice isn't being heard. You could place stiffer penalties, and it will still happen. Short of doing what NYC did with their subways in the 70's, I don't imagine it's going to be very easy to stop unless you dedicate valuable resources, (which I find would be better used elsewhere.) to this specific cause.
There are more important things.
dc
2step - no worries - some people can see it, and some can't....i'll be the first to admit that this seems like a lot of fuss to make about a fairly pedestrian phenomenon; but considering what's at stake, architects should be paying attention to this activity and trying to make some sense of it beyond simple distinctions like "good" or "evil"
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.