Talking (not Tackling) Street Art at Housepaint
What is the definition of vandalism with regard to street art and graffiti? What is the municipal policy and possible penalties for street artists? As street artists become more enmeshed with the art world, how do they maintain their street credibility? How is street art different from tagging and vandalism? Is street art simply a short cut into the art establishment?
These important questions were the full nelsons of the Wednesday night throw down I attended - between artists and establishment at the ROM's Signy and Cléophée Eaton Theatre as part of their current exhibition, Housepaint.
Adam Vaughan (Councillor, City of Toronto), Dan Bergeron (aka fauxreel), David Liss (artistic director, MOCCA) and Devon Ostrom (curator, Housepaint) faced off on the above questions in an attempt to shed light, not on the answers but on the perspectives that make them so unanswerable. In truth, I was glad to see that those who went to see the hate being flung between "high" and "low" class had to wait through a lot of the civilized logic being traded on stage. A testament to the character of the panelists, each seemed resigned that divisions of institutional versus street art - namely, those imposed by notions of class (as pointed out by David Liss) - run deep but are still worthy of measured debate.
Though they addressed policies, processes and social aspects of street art, the conversation often returned to the very nature of street art. One of the most evident fault lines of discussion, during Talking Street Art was the perception that street art is a culmination of graffiti, hip hop culture, dissenting youth and poverty.
Given some time to reflect after the panel, Devon Ostrom reiterates a point from the Housepaint exhibition statement: Street art is often associated with graffiti. In fact, since the earliest cave dwellers, people have been drawing in places where they forgot to ask permission first. Hip-hop culture took this tendency and gave the form a massive boost in innovation, technical skill, and style. Almost overnight, bathroom scribbles took a giant leap in evolution, vibrantly turning New York City's subway cars into giant rolling art galleries. "My point being credit is owed, but hip-hop graffiti was not the start of drawing on things."
The current popularization of street art and it's inception to the mainstream had the panel agreeing on the shift in ideologies and practice of individual artists, some of whom have made the leap into gallery and commercial space. For the artists, one of the more important shifts came in the form of civil leniency toward artists who stick to the street. "In some ways the city has actually made a lot of progress in how graffiti and street artists are dealt with," says Devon. "Not too long ago it was not uncommon for artists to be beaten, let alone fined. I personally have a friend who was beaten to the point of internal bleeding by the police. Actually participation in institutional shows can be great for getting artists out of court. Most Judges are well educated and love good art."
Administering the panel was Francisco Alvarez, the Managing Director of the Institute for Contemporary Culture (ICC) at the ROM, "It went very well, with a good variety of perspectives represented. In particular, it was interesting to hear from City Councillor Adam Vaughn how the City is attempting to deal with graffiti while still viewing artistic mural painting as a positive force. Clearly, we did not arrive at a definite answer, it's like asking "what is art?", a question that has been debated endlessly."
Francisco culled the discussion topics from ICC members and the panelists themselves. "Three main themes emerged: Street art and the Municipality, Street art and the mainstream art world, How street artists have evolved since the original of graffiti."
I'm rather amazed and think that it's incredible that Housepaint is really the first exhibition by a major Canadian museum to address street art and it's surrounding issues. An art form that has been developed for decades - and centuries, when considering Devon's earlier sentiments - and practiced world wide. Francisco explains that Housepaint presented the ICC with an opportunity to bridge solid context with innovation. "Our mandate is to present exhibitions and programs that examine cultural, social and/or political issues in societies around the world. In this case, we look at homelessness and poverty through the lens of socially-concerned street artists."
The panel talk was one of the many layers of this ode to street art, including the Housepaint at Tent City - Phase 1 Hug Me Tree installation by Elicser Elliot, the screenings of BOMB IT and NEXT: A Primer on Urban Painting (my particular favourite).
Images by: Roger Cullman
Comments (23)
As an artist i do believe that most street art is vandalism and grafitti....you should not paint on other people's walls.....nor should you be arrogant enough to think that you're talented to the extent that everyone will be pleased to see whatever you do, where ever you put it...street art only encourages shitty tagging and scribbling...is anything art now?...a piece of fecal matter on a plate?...i thought we'd gotten over that phase......good art comes through study and experience, street art is the result of punks dirtying up the city...as far as it appearing in a gallery?...that's perfect, let people go to it, don't spam the eye.
Once again beauty is in the eye of the beholder; and though "fecal matter on a plate" may not be appealing to all, neither are billboards, to some they "spam the eye" as much if not more than tags do. To some; tags actually enhance the cityscape. I think it is a sort of luxury and really a waste to fight street art, and even debate it. There are more pressing things we should be discussing and using our resources for; like poverty for example.
Art is expression, as long as it doesn't do anyone any direct harm then it's just art. If it's good it will make you think, obviously even bad art makes people think. Let it be. The worse penalty for creating art without permission should be cleaning it up. If it's in a public space, and no one makes a formal complaint let it be.
While every individual has their own right to an opinion I don't agree with ddt's sentiments. I personally think yes graffiti is a commonly used form in vandalism, and yes there are arrogant writers who don't think about the walls of private homes...Those writers may change but only time will tell. Does graffiti belong in galleries maybe..But I know it will always belong where it is not supposed to (the streets). Why? Because the act in itself is an attempt for the artist to distance themselves from the high brow and the rules government and society have placed to keep a sense of order. Where would graffiti be had the graffiti artists not broken the rules of society and high brow art to send a message...Besides, did high brow not start as low brow, or start at a place which was attempting to send a message about poverty or humanity. Look at Gustav Clement for example...or others...
Agree with both of you....but let the street artist be angstful and use the house he or she buys and pays for as their canvas....there's nothing appealing about cig butts on the road, gum all over the sidewalks, and little flowing through our streets.now we condone junking up the walls too?
"Besides, did high brow not start as low brow, or start at a place which was attempting to send a message about poverty or humanity"....i do think we hear quite a bit about poverty, we certainly don't need to all be brought down to that level or to those conditions,unfotunatly the common joe can't do too much about it, or he'll end up in the poorhouse, corporations don't care.......there's something inherently annoying about activism on behalf of any issue, invading the space of the taxpayer(common joe), the majority of whom barely make ends meet..... "Because the act in itself is an attempt for the artist to distance themselves from the high brow and the rules government and society have placed to keep a sense of order"...but there is already order, the invasive element is disorderly....and by acknowlegding order as the enemy, you have this ridiculous anarchistic "eat the rich" crap at play...which never gets anyone anywhere, especially if that is the modus operundi that is suppose to attract positive attention to a cause.The artist should find an expressive avenue outside of established order, which builds the canvas he paints on.
Who is this common Joe? I have never met him? Please introduce. I would expect anyone having trouble making ends meet would invite discussion concerning affordable housing within one of Canada’s top cultural institutions, no? After all, we built it for talking and learning in.
Not sure if I understand what you are talking about with high-brow / low brow, anarchy or eating rich people, does not seem to make sense – would you mind rewording it a bit? Sorry.
What I find interesting is how expressions of youth culture are suppressed while the bigger picture is totally missed. The dominant culture is over-run with illegal advertising yet gets its knickers in a knot over some amazing artists who feel really strongly about making their communities more beautiful places to live (and also some destructive kids). Or, that the pharmaceutical industry is overmedicating every facet of human existence -- yet kids are getting criminal records for smoking pot. We can’t crack down on cars that kill thousands in Toronto every year from pollution or unsafe sport utility vehicles – but damn, we sure can kick those physically active kids out of the park for skateboarding…
There's a political element to graffiti and street art which isn't always part of other forms of art: bombing a wall or installing a piece is a political act with free speech, social class, property rights, and commercial bias entanglements implicit.
Also within the show we are not just pointing at or talking around an issue (poverty, housing etc.) we are also providing a platform for advocates (http://housepaint.typepad.com/housepaint/2009/01/an-evening-with-cathy-crowe-homelessness-in-our-city.html ) and the direct unmediated voices of homeless people through video and text ( http://housepaint.typepad.com/housepaint/subtext-realstories.html ) and helping to be part of the solution by auctioning the pieces at the end for Habitat for Humanity ( http://housepaint.typepad.com/housepaint/register-for-updates.html )
"I would expect anyone having trouble making ends meet would invite discussion concerning affordable housing within one of Canada’s top cultural institutions" nope they're too busy working, paying taxes, caught in the wheels of making ends meet, the middle class, you know,the ones that pay for it all?
"The dominant culture is over-run with illegal advertising yet gets its knickers in a knot over some amazing artists who feel really strongly about making their communities more beautiful places to live (and also some destructive kids)." ....those illegal signs are paid for to landlords who pay taxes that go towards community issues.don't attack that influx of cash, it pays welfare.
" but damn, we sure can kick those physically active kids out of the park for skateboarding… " so?
But does that attack the real issue?...or set up the organizers as social champions?, furthering their accalaim,popularizing them as the mouth pieces , speaking for those that can't speak for themselves, too high form the smell of spray paint? ....is that like Hillary Weston cutting a ribbon at a new hostel and then touring the far east?
please don't attatch the same pretense to this "art form" that art critics use to push the "next brilliant thing" onto silly listeners caught up in artistic conspicuous consumption.....too academic for the streets
Re: 11:44 PM
1. More than anything artists themselves subsidize their work, most have to work second and third jobs etc. Keeping in mind that you have probably not seen the show, or went to the talk, what would you have preferred the funds were spent on?
2. You have a weird sense of the public. They are not a thoughtless drudging mass.
3. I would rather remove the illegal signs.
4. “So?” Please re-read the paragraph.
Re: 11:47 PM
1. What is the real issue that we should be attacking? How could we do this better? Most people are quite happy that we inserted tent city narrative into the institutional / collective memory of Canada (i.e. ROM) via street art.
Re: 11:50 PM
1. Hmm? I’ll use whatever arguments I feel like using thanks.
Devon....what you are doing is a good thing, the gallery idea is wonderful,and i have been to many shows of this type...my first being in 1989, one of the first grafitti at a gallery showings at an old gallery on spadina...i guess the problem i have , being a somewhat sucessful artist is that there are two art worlds, at least from my experience, the real one, and the marketed trendy one.....perhaps im mistaken, but it seems as though in this case that the gallery world is justifying vandalism so that it can push a new and yes, completely exciting art form...the participants are oft times brilliant designers....but painting on other peoples walls is a no no....just like illegal billboards..
"Hip-hop culture took this tendency and gave the form a massive boost in innovation, technical skill, and style. Almost overnight, bathroom scribbles took a giant leap in evolution, vibrantly turning New York City's subway cars into giant rolling art galleries".....another problem, and not an artistic one, is the issue of what hip hop promotes....along with this style comes shooting and club violence, it's part of the gangster style...i feel that grafitti or street art under this umbrella only emphasizes this threatening ideal....when most people(albeit unenlightened like yourself devon) see this art they think gang,,,, especially in the northern end of the city....in the same way that people equate rockers to bikers.In my day we rockers were actually too stoned to fight,lol.....but now you have this emergence starting in the early 90's of a gun culture, hip hop being it's introducer....the more it's promoted...the more violent things get....i see this living in this area of the city where hip hop and the like are king....downtown you dont see it as you do on jane st between dundas and finch....so i can see how the beauty in the street art form can be seen, however;it's true meaning and intent is something not as palatable...
According to the Toronto police website on graffiti only 5% of graffiti in Toronto is gang related. Dangerous criminals don't break into places, paint pretty pictures and then leave their name.
I would also say that hip-hop is not the problem, but its bastard stepchild, the commercialized version: blingpop. This shit is more targeted and modified to tap into the base desires (tits and guns) of suburban basement dwelling teenagers. Real gangsters listen to Yanni.
true.....but 100% in certain areas..."Dangerous criminals don't break into places, paint pretty pictures and then leave their name"....but it all contributes to the impression that there is a lack of sustained police presence, or care, which tips off the criminal element as to potential territory...
Blingpop, i agree is shit ...what you're promoting is far superior....yanni?....now that really makes me angry ...nonetheless, best of luck in regards to your well produced, and well thought out efforts...we can't all agree, but that's what makes art and expression a wonderful thing...and i defend your right to paint, just not on my wall k?;)
Thank you for the complements.
I think you are refering to the 'broken windows theory?' I don't buy that. I think the reverse, that larger crimes in society set the example that creates the smaller stuff. Generaly, people are very moral until given 'permission' to act otherwise. (Also, from what I know, organized crime hates vandals and will do nasty things to them if caught near their turf.)
Also also, I have never painted on your house and I don't know any serious artist that would do that.
(From a mobile device)
it was a joke,chill.....nonetheless thank you for the education, and your efforts.....well spoken and organized artists and or enthusiasts is what we need more of...be well
Roger,
I mean't Gustave Courbet...Thank's for that note...ddt, your an artist...do you paint..have you faced any of the negative results of graffiti (street art) expression...All I can say is that I all too familiar with it..And for what, in an attempt to potentially allow others and myself discover that to change our perspective through the actions of graffiti we can possibly change the outcome of how graffiti changes its meaning and sense of expression within the system in which it lives. Graffiti is beautiful, it must stay where it started for people to understand that it is not bad in its association as a true form of artistic expression..
"there are two art worlds, at least from my experience, the real one, and the marketed trendy one."
Not sure which is which. The real art world that you speak of (which doesn't include street art in your eyes) would not exist without the marketing side of the galleries, museums, other groups, and even the artists creating it. I would almost argue that street art, which until recently existed outside "the real" art world, is an art movement that is more sincere and "art for art's sake" than the art world that you identify with.
And then there's the losers who think that tagging useless crap all over billboard ads will get them street cred.
View More Events
Suggest an Event
Join the blogTO Flickr group
Join the blogTO YouTube Group
RSS