Registered user login:

Painting the town

Sarah Birke

Published 09 April 2007

Observations on public art

Graffiti is the most prolific - and enduring - genre of public art. Although its association with vandalism tainted its early modern life, it is rapidly being accepted as a genuine form of art, exhibited in museums and even coming under the high-class hammer at Sotheby's in recent years.

But there are other kinds of street art, made by a new generation that is finding novel ways of making its mark. Last year, the artist "Slink" left a Hansel-and-Gretel trail of art around London. Walking around the capital, the 26-year-old left more than 50 miniature dolls on street corners, at traffic lights and in other places where they would be noticed only by those who glanced in their direction.

Slink went on to place his tiny dolls around Manchester, and then Barcelona and Amsterdam, in the hope of waking passers-by from zombie-like inattention to their surroundings. The dolls - about the size of a thumb but intricately detailed - have long since been swept away or eaten, but the artist is still at work distributing new diminutive items.

Slink is part of a growing trend of anonymous street art projects. Last year, New Yorkers were puzzled to wake up to a number of artistic additions to their road crossings. Instead of the minimalist red and green men, the lit figures at pedestrian crossings were adorned with handbags, shoes, hats and complicated items of clothing.

The endeavours clearly amuse, but their definition as art is hotly debated. What is the aim behind such works? Like graffiti, they offer the opportunity for anyone to "exhibit" work and tend to focus on statement rather than aesthetics. And although graffiti artists identify themselves with tags, personal fame is self-evidently not a priority. Britain's most famous graffiti artist, Banksy, has hidden his real identity despite the global reach of his work, while Slink and the New York dressers have been particularly elusive to interested critics and journalists.

The messages of these kinds of public art deliver more than simple opinions, and are often intended to be socially emancipating. In the United States, the ubiquity of graffiti in downtown neighbourhoods such as Brooklyn proves how useful a way it is for underprivileged citizens to express themselves.

In Northern Ireland, loyalist and republican murals served a political purpose, while the Berlin Wall was covered in graffiti, political and personal and cultural.

For Slink, street art is also a social experiment. "I want to encourage people to look around, at the city, at the things around them," he told an Italian newspaper last month. "Adults pay no attention to their surroundings. We walk around as if we were blind."

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

5 comments from readers

Tim Barrus Cinemathequefilms
06 April 2007 at 14:24

In a word: revenge. Most of my compatriots at YouTube would be offended to hear that their work is graffiti.

Their work and my work is graffiti.

I work with young artists in a film collective where posting video to YouTube is very definitely creating public art. Yesterday, the Museum of Modern Art in New York posted one of our videos to their channel at YouTube. This is the third time this has happened to us. We find the interaction exciting. You can't get around the fact that what we do is art. You can't get around the fact that it's very public. You can't escape the reality it's a form of graffiti.

We love graffiti.

Why.

Because everyone can see it? This is too simplistic.

One of the reasons we do what we do has to do with revenge. The art world, the publishing world, and the film world have all been conquered and ruined by the middle men who produce absolutely nothing. Yet they make the rules. To benefit themselves. They have become what these worlds are all about.

The artist is ephemeral.

What makes a work of art valuable is the recognition that it is valuable. This recognition is not automatic and intuitive; it has to be constructed. A work of art has to circulate through a sub-economy of exchange operated by a large and growing class of middlemen: publishers, curators, producers, publicists, philanthropists, foundation officers, critics, professors, editors, and so on. Without these grand poobahs the whole thing collapses of its own heavy, dull weight. The prize system, and the award system in terms of who gets to make public art, with its own cadre of career administrators and judges, is one of the ways in which value gets “added on” to a work. Of course, we like to think that the recognition of artistic excellence is intuitive. We don’t like to think of cultural value as something that requires middlemen—useless people who are not artists themselves—in order to emerge. We prefer to believe that truly good literature or music or film announces itself.

Folly.

But graffiti is different. Its value is not connected to your contractual relationships that assign worth. It is in your face. It exists outside the structures you have created that historically keep us out. It exists because inclusion is valuable even if inclusion is spit on and exclusion is the norm. Our art is out there with the great rabble of the crowd. Because we want revenge and we shall have it. In the form of pointing out with (le small dolls) that you do not SEE. In the form of announcing a gang's turf. In the form of pointing out that some intellectual property must exist in the public domain. Our work is original and yet challenges the notion that anything can be original. It confronts the idea of ownership. It confronts the idea of exclusivity. It ESPECIALLY confronts the idea that the heirarchal aristrocracy's place is to control the flow of creativity. The aristocracy might distain it, but it can't control it. And most of all, it isn't corporate. It does not exist to enrich you. It exists to enrich you. It is ironic and a contradiction. It is revenge. It is a part of the world. It exists alongside the chaotic and the tumultuous. You cannot control it and we are compelled to the secrecy it evolves in. It is in this place our art is art. Not a commodity to be picked apart by percentages. You scoff it has no value. But it speaks to us like nothing else does -- especially the cultural garbage pushed by the middlemen -- in knowing ourselves. -- And knowing yourself is the final and ultimate revenge. Tim Barrus, Paris

sarap
06 April 2007 at 16:15

How wonderfull that those poor working class black people can express themselves through this graffitt art. Martin Luther King would be so proud at this profound step foward for black and white 'disenfranchised' groups. Im sure its what the civil rights movement would have wanted.

Michelle Woodward
07 April 2007 at 12:02

Beirut is full of political graffiti and posters. There exists a whole genre of curious stenciled graffiti that I've been photographically documenting on my blog, www.photobeirut.typepad.com. Some of the stenciled images are clearly about claiming territory for one's group (crosses in Christian neighborhoods), others are more whimsical (flowers with the message "don't pick the flowers". There are also some about being gay, challenging passersby with, for example, an image of two men in an embrace and text asking "what's the problem?"

Michelle Woodward, Beirut

Admin
10 April 2007 at 14:11

From letters to the editor...

Sorry, but unlike Sarah Birke, (New Statesman 9th April 07) I find it very hard to love the graffiti artist. Despite the very rare creative product I find graffiti alienating and productive of a rubbish-tip environment. When it was the craze to spray and etch all over the interiors and exteriors of public transport vehicles – sadly it still happens all too frequently - I used to find it maddening, because as a none-car owner I objected at being forced to ride amongst this crap everyday. ‘Why do they not graffiti private vehicles – cars, taxis and such like?’ I asked myself. Because the private motorist would create such uproar, that graffiti artists would be too terrified to immerge into the daylight – or should it be ‘moonlight’ - ever again.

I assumed it was because of the different attitudes we have towards the public and the private. It’s OK to treat public space as a general rubbish dump and pigsty while private property is considered sacrosanct. I doubt very much if any of those who dabble in graffiti are property-owners, and being a very materialist and status conscious society, their efforts are really an expression of exclusion and resentment.

Anthony Deane.

saxonwhittle
29 April 2007 at 23:34

I am a huge fan of graffiti when it captures the imagination, or forces you to think about something. In other words, I like graffiti when it has a certain craftsmanship. I would certainly place the work of Banksy, and others like him into that category. Although I do know 'taste' varies from person to person, you can normally tell if someone has thought or cared about what they were doing, and not just imposed a form of deliberate destruction for no reasons other than self-satisfaction.

These are the other forms of graffiti which I hate, and they tend to be crass, and contrived pieces of 'work'. I find it unfair that they often target independent shops, who have to subsequently clean it off, or risk looking like they are less desirable establishments. Graffiti is fine, as long as it doesn't infringe on the majority of people's lives, like the above example of public transport. We want more people in this country to be using the transport network, and the deliberate destruction of public services should not be tolerated.

Graffiti disused buildings, yes. Give us good craftsmanship (ie. Banksy etc). But please, don't waste public money, or the time/money of hard-working people on cleaning up your mess.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Also by Sarah Birke

Read More

Vote!

Should Darling have been bolder with the 45% tax rate?