To some, it’s a sign of the downfall of society. To others, it’s an act of rebellion. To still others, it’s a work of art. To Banksy and Shepherd Fairey, it’s all three.
Graffiti is, to me, an interesting issue, and one about which I have spent some time arguing with myself. When Shepherd Fairey was arrestedin Boston in February, I defended the actions of the Boston Police, because Fairey was wanted and they knew where he would be. Graffiti is, after all, illegal.
Of course, at the same time, there’s a big difference between this:
And this:
While I consider the first to be a work of art, the second is a work of pornography. While, in many ways, the same impulse drives the two paintings, Fairey articulates a message using symbolism and shared experience while the author of the second painting attempts to revolt his audience. Of course, in both cases, I am stating my own opinion, and it’s completely possible that any given person would disagree on one or both counts.
The Massachusetts state government obviously disagrees with me in regards to the first painting. Whether the artist considers it art or not, the government considers all graffiti to be the same, which, for their purposes, is perfectly reasonable. So it only makes sense that they would arrest Fairey.
Of course, it’s also perfect reasonable to make the argument that the Boston Police Department could have spent their time and money on arresting someone guilty of something with a far worse effect on society than a couple of old cases of iconic graffiti, like drug dealers, murderers, and other serious offenders. This argument is completely sound, and I agree with it as much as I agree that the BPD wasn’t wrong to arrest Fairey.
What I’m trying to write about here is the idea that graffiti can be art, not whether it should be legal or not, but the fact of the matter is that the two questions are intertwined. If graffiti were legalized, would the works of Fairey and Banksy still be considered art, or would they merely be another part of urban life, like pigeons on sidewalks or goose shit in public parks?
Fairey and Banksy both operate in a mindset of guerilla art. What they do is artistic not only because of the beauty of the images they create, but because they create them as an act of trasgression against societal norms.
Seeing Andre the Giant’s face and the word “Obey” stamped over and over again underneath an advertisement for the MBTA wouldn’t have quite the same impact if we were used to such incongruities in daily life. If Banksy’s stenciled rats climbing on the walls of London were everyday occurances, they wouldn’t send as strong a message.
Great art, to me, is in many ways, circumstantial. It has as much to do with context as it has to do with content. If someone were to paint something as artistically precise and proficient as the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or Las Meninas, it would be largely ignored, because those were paintings of their eras. If Picasso created Guernica today, it would be considered passé. It could be said that anyone could make a Jackson Pollack painting, but only Pollack had the idea and the guts to make it. These are some of the greatest works of art of all time, yet if they were created today, they would at best be considered aesthetically proficient.
The same could be said for Fairey and Banksy. While their paintings are beautiful in their own right, they probably wouldn’t change the world of art in any other context. The illegality of their art is their art. As they are, I consider them great artists. However, as their art reaches larger audiences, and becomes less outsider art and more museum art (I suppose I should say if this happens), the images they create will begin to lose their meanings.
in a nutshell, this song is about being brought down, making the best out of a bad situation, and turning it into something positive
