news-record.com

BLOGS

Thinking Out Loud

Is all graffiti created equal?

I ran again Saturday morning on the new Atlantic & Yadkin greenway, and am pleased to report that the second time around was even better than the first.

There were even some kind folks handing out bottled water at the Battleground Park lot (my personal finish line).

There also was fresh graffiti in the Cone Boulevard underpass, but I have to admit it didn't bother me.

It pictured a bunny rabbit in a flowering field, and I thought it actually added something to the surroundings.

Of course, it's still illegal.

And I guess it still counts as vandalism.

City crews will probably wash it away.

But it wasn't angry, profane and pointless, like the first batch.

And it makes me wonder if there is place for public art — created by the public — in public places.

Permalink

Posted by Allen Johnson on Monday, August 30, 2010 at 3:00 am

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

retiree

August 30, 2010 - 6:37 am EDT

So, are you suggesting we spend public funds to create some kind of art place (like dog parks) where people can draw or paint, or whatever, on the backs of citizens? Shame on you! If they want to express themselves, get some paper and pencils, chalk, etc, and do it, but please don't consider grafitti some kind of art.

newtogso

August 30, 2010 - 8:53 am EDT

well, in the highly subjective world of art, graffitti in some forms is highly respected. Graffiti is a style of art - unfortunately it is very often associated with illegal painting of public and private structures. So, it's worthwhile to make a distinction between grafitti as an art style, and the illegal act of painting in places without permission.

That being said, I'm pretty sure, the plan is for the underpass walls to be painted (with art). Check with GDOT to be sure, but seems to me that was the plan.

retiree

August 31, 2010 - 6:15 pm EDT

Art is in the eye of the beholder and grafitti, to me, is not art. Similarly, the depiction of Jesus Christ in a toilet in a museum is not art, but is a warped self-expression of the "artist." My emphasis is to not use government tax revenues to fund the "artists".

newtogso

September 1, 2010 - 1:35 pm EDT

Declarations of what is and what isn't art will always be subjective. You can say that graffitti isn't art and yet right now a grafitti artist is doing an installation at the Center for Visual Artists. And our taxes will always pay for a wide variety of things - some of which we agree with and some of which we don't. We don't get to pick what we pay for "a la carte." Graffitti, when done in places where it isn't wanted, should be cleaned up, but where it is commissioned by a willing owner, we ought not condemn it.

Panacea

September 2, 2010 - 9:12 am EDT

Vincent Van Gogh could not make a living as an artist in his own life time. People thought his art was ugly and bizarre. He was an alcoholic, and probably an epileptic, and possibly bi-polar or schizophrenic.

Today, his paintings fetch millions. He is considered one of the greatest artists of all time.

I don't see depictions of religious figures encased in excrement to be art either. Those artists are most likely to be ridiculed in future art history classes. But how we express ourselves, and what we choose to express is a huge part of what art is. It can not and should not be constrained by the sensibilities of the public through money.

If the art is offensive, the artist will eventually vanish. The fickle public will punish them in a more effective way; with disinterest.

Panacea

August 30, 2010 - 11:57 am EDT

I have no problem with a public place for artists to show their skills and work. There's a big difference between the type of graffiti Allen mentions today, and spatterings of gang signs and profanity. The latter is to be encouraged (with appropriate rules to protect property), the latter to be discouraged and punished appropriately.

Really, what is so hard about giving genuine artists use of what would otherwise be a plain and ugly cement wall?

brian444

August 30, 2010 - 1:29 pm EDT

Profanity and gang signs vs. bunnies in flowering fields? Tough call.

Gymnaseum

September 1, 2010 - 7:40 pm EDT

That art was by Greensboro College Professor Ray Martin, who is spearheading a gigantic mural project.

Gratis. Some might say as a civic benefit.

Gymnaseum

September 1, 2010 - 7:18 pm EDT

The "Jesus Christ in a toilet" image, I assume, refers to the renegade but still devout Catholic artist, Andres Serrano, and his infamous work decried by the likes of such great art connoisseurs as the late Sen. Jesse Helms. It can be viewed as commentary on how the extraction of monies from the pious to build and decorate grand cathedrals, etc., have sullied His message of compassion for the poor.