Contemporary Art Thread (Page 10 of 17)

imo you're comparing things on different levels here

art is always accompanied by some context, and there are many, many different contexts, so you can never 'put graffiti in the same context as art'. I mean, tell me, what is THE context of art?

'the way you judge a piece of graffitti is soo different to the way you judge a work of art.'

how can you say that? if you judge different for art than for non-art than you first have to decide what's art and what's not, that's already judging!

'art has moved far beyond making pretty pictures with carefully coloured in shapes, we have been post-modern since the 80s!'

so... what's your point? Rembrandt's paintings aren't art anymore? Today you can't come up with pretty pictures as an artist?

haha yea rembrandt is still art, he is actually one of my all time favs but if he were about today and his work never existed before, and it was still as good, then unfortunatley, no, it probably would not be considered art. just like those guys who paint great pictures on plates, or a sign painter, or a graphic artist, yea there is skill, im not disputing that, but it simply is not art. why, because it has ignored all that has happened in art. like for instance take an easy example, henry moore/barbara hepworth, the big round stones and stuff, lauded at the time, but now if you made stuff like that, you would'nt even make it out of art school.

ok blackshape, i think i understand what you mean now: you mean that those examples of graffiti aren't artistic enough, if they'd be made nowadays

but you confuse me by saying that graffiti is not art

here's some 'real' contemporary graffiti

@zip for something close to contemporary graffitti, i like this stuff a lot

peoples, please. if the grafitti artist is considered a street artist he crosses over from one world to the other.
saying "grafiti is not art" and then say "we have been postmodern since the 80s" is also rather paradoxal.
also, the way the word "context" is used as if it is a given, doesn't compute.
not all good grafiti is art.. but there sure are a lot of grafiti artists making it to the galleries in NL. some of those are really "taggers" only.

This isn't a tagged stool in a gallery

hey black shape. Ive read everything you've said and I understand what your getting at, but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Not all graffiti is art, but to say that all graffiti isn't art is the problem... but hey, no worries.

heres one I done earlier:

I call it: tracklist beaten, ground up internet in D minor.

hey meschi that is a rip off of micael craig martin, shoulda done your homework!!

to clear up, i didnt say no graffitti can be art. i actually said the opposite. of course it can, anything can. just happens that examples here arent. also i probably like graffiti as much as any one else here, which is also half the reason i say it should not be classed as art.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OGziyW-_FY[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=regJGOzWIBo[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR5paDaHtm8[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5P5D2xTRNQ[/youtube]

don't agree at all I'm afraid. I judge art and graffiti with the same criteria. graffiti is very far away from pretty pictures. most of it is actually in direct confrontation with what the public (and you) assume is art. and tbh mate I'm not sure that in any of the work you like there is actually anything with much more meaning than a prettty/clever picture. most things on this thread remind me of the kind of photo-manipulations people will send you for a joke in yr email.

in other words what you call post-modern I call a tacky gimmick, what you call a pretty picture I call passionate expression. your rigid definition of art assumes there's some kind of right or wrong way to go about art, that it's either correct or not, and that's clearly misunderstanding the purpose and nature of art.

it's a purely subjective affair mate, sorry.

so please actually tell us your definition of art then!

and to say the context of graffiti is hiphop culture just makes me realise how little you know what you're talking about before rubbishing alternative points of view!!

we don't want to label it anything, I simply observe that it is art.

you fail to understand here that graffiti, the movement, is art, and has changed in countless ways. honestly mate step out the classroom and walk some tunnels, then tell us that we know nothing about art and that our experience is invalid as creative self-expression. it really sounds like you have a very limited understanding of what graffiti is too.

edit: Banksy is not very good, think that's most people's objection to him. I personally find it a bit tacky and gimmicky... and of course too easy to do. but that is just my opinion. art is an interesting world because it is subjective and we all have different opinions. there is no right or wrong. there is no textbook. there are no rules. only yourself and the statement you wish to make, the art you choose to enjoy whatever that may be.

for some reason 'the critics' out of Viz spring to mind...