'Street' Art?

There is a lot of controversy surrounding art nowadays, as more frequently we are seeing exhibitions in galleries containing artwork that many do not consider to be ‘art’. For instance, the street artist Banksy has recently opened an exhibition at the Andipa Gallery, London; the difference between supposed exhibition pieces and street art being that a lot of art is made to last and to be enjoyed but street art has a short life span, as it is illegal. For many street artists, the movement started out as a joke but talented artists with strong political views got involved. Banksy's work embraces satirical social and political issues, taking the form of murals, sculpture and installation.

As with other street artists, Banksy would have to leave the site quickly so as to not get caught. Through filming ‘Exit Through The Gift Shop’ (2010) he was able to have someone return with a camera and ask the public’s opinion on his art, a lot of the feedback was positive. In Banksy’s first exhibition Barely Legal in LA (2006), he forced street art into the spotlight by putting a camouflaged elephant into his exhibition and collectors rushed to get in on it. Through perceived power, gained by the power of the repetition building up hype around it, street art has made its way into collections worldwide; it is socially a fascinating thing to observe what people buy into.

This is not the first time we have seen artists push at the ‘boundaries’ that seem to be in place within art; Marcel Duchamp being notorious for purchasing everyday objects, sometimes combining them into unique constructions, and announcing them as art that became to be known as the ready-mades. Ready-made artists took items that were not what would be called traditional exhibition pieces and made them so, even though they had not created them or in other cases just made direct copies of them. It is the idea of recycling everyday objects, taking them out of their original context and introducing them to a new environment, that intrigued Duchamp and so many other artists after him; the items are looked at with a different perspective so given a new meaning. This has been the cause of many disagreements between critics for years, questioning whether it can be classed as art or not.

The perceived connotations of a piece of artwork can change so it makes a difference if it is placed into another context. Artwork can be bought to a different audience so it can be seen in a new light, whereas it may have been lost if this had not happened. This has always been the case but it takes some time for people to adjust to new ideas and to look with an open mind at things that do not lie within their comfort zone. People expect artists to abide by the rules, but essentially by calling yourself an artist surely there aren’t any rules to break.

'Fountain', Duchamp, 1913

'One Nation Under CCTV', Banksy, 2008

Banksy's exhibition at the Andipa Gallery, London is open from 9th June - 9th July 2011: www.andipa.com/Exhibitions/Banksy-War-Boutique.php

For a firsthand insight into the world of street art I would thoroughly recommend watching ‘Exit Through The Gift Shop’: www.imdb.com/title/tt1587707/

The Age Old Question 'But is it Art?'

Why is the definition of art still such a debate?

I refer to the recent news about the European Commission not recognising light works created by Dan Flavin and Bill Viola as 'art'.

That basically means the galleries will have to pay full VAT and customs dues on the 'light fittings'.

A shrewd loophole of gaining some revenue by arguing point that is clearly ridiculous maybe?

Article in the Art Newspaper below:

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Flavin+and+Viola+light+works+ruled+not+art/22069

Moving on from the monetary aspect here, I love the fact that the term 'art' still cannot be defined.

Ok, yes granted, some contemporary 'art' can be frustrating for some people to see a stack of bricks and asked to look at it as a piece of art when for them an oil painting is the preferred more obvious choice.

But therein lies the beauty of contemporary art surely. The very raising of the question, opens up the debate for people to look at things in a different way, a new inspired way that they would otherwise look over.

Spotting a concept, beauty, an idealism, a political comment all from one object or installation and presenting it back out to the public gaze has got to be a craft in itself surely?

Without art, or indeed to be more specific creating an image, sculpture or film to briefly make you stop look listen, feel, and/or react to life would be pretty boring.

We aren't just practical beings. We have an imagination, we dream, we aspire to a better future. And so we use art as a way of expressing that.

Not everyone will like it, and glad to hear it. It only opens the debate further, which can only be a good thing.

I think there is some pieces out there that seem to be a pretentious attempt to intentionally alienate the audience or art viewer and appreciator. It can become therefore elitist. And really then what's the point. If you're expressing something, why would you just want the only person to understand and appreciate it to be you??

Anyway, those light fittings were intended as a piece of art by the creator so surely its not up to the EC to decide whether they think should be deemed 'art' if its turned off or on.........

It's a debate we'll all have for centuries to come I imagine. And its with great thanks to the EC! They have highlighted a lovely piece of 'art' to a wider audience to enthuse, discuss and enjoy! Not their initial intention I'm sure :)