Riggle Thinks That No Graffiti Can Be Street Art
An active graffiti and street art spot in Williamsburg, Brooklyn (all photos by the author for Hyperallergic)
Today, a iii-mean solar day conference titled Philosophy of Street Fine art: Art in and of the Street begins at Pratt Institute and New York University. Organized by Gregg Horowitz of Pratt, Nicholas Riggle of Lafayette College, and Christy Mag Uidhir of the University of Houston, the issue volition characteristic an artist panel (with Leon Reid IV, HOTTEA, ELBOW-TOE, and Tatyana Fazlalizadeh), ii days of papers and discussions, and a keynote lecture by a leading authority on the topic, Alison Young of the University of Melbourne, who will speak about "Mainstreaming the Street: The Cultural Value of Illicit Street Art."
I spoke to Riggle near why a group of philosophers and social scientists is interested in street art and what fascinates them about the field.
A consummate schedule for the conference, which is free and open up to the public, is available online.
* * *
On Driggs Avenue, Williamsburg, Brooklyn
Hrag Vartanian:As a philosopher, what fascinates yous about street art?
Nicholas Riggle: First of all, there'south but the classic philosophical question: what is it? What is street fine art? You lot might think it's just art in the street, but that can't be right because yous tin stick a painting on the sidewalk without making street art. So what is it? Does information technology take to be illegal or nonconsensual in some sense? Does it have to be motivated by a certain worldview or social status? What is "the street," anyhow? Is it just a logistical space that facilitates travel by car and human foot, or is it a richer sociocultural infinite, perchance one that promotes public interaction? There's also a range of questions street art raises for philosophical aesthetics. Is there annihilation distinctive about street art's power as fine art — or does information technology achieve no more than can be accomplished by painting, sculpture, installation, and and so on? Is street art a postmodern art form, or is it something new, peradventure a distinctive response to problems that arose with modern art?
Past the way, nosotros're not exclusively interested in street art — we're too interested in graffiti and the distinctive questions it raises. Stepping dorsum a bit from these specific questions well-nigh the fine art grade, one might pose more general questions about street art and civilization. I retrieve anyone who pays attending to art senses that street art is a new and exciting practise. And then why is it around now? What'south exciting almost it? What is it almost our cultural and technological era that makes street art and so compelling to then many people? Should they be so compelled?
HV:Why hasn't a conference similar this happened until now?
NR: There take been several conferences on street art, but none with a specifically philosophical focus. Philosophers accept been a little late to the party on this ane. It'southward not easy to definitively say why, especially given the influence of street art and graffiti on the civilisation — on art product, appreciation, and drove.
I would put information technology down to a range of factors: a lack of awareness or familiarity, a sense that it'south not as interesting every bit traditional fine art, and perhaps a bit of a "highbrow" bias or a trend to avoid popular civilisation. But the antitoxin to all that is a sincere look at the art form, which to exist sure contains some really bad art, simply which also contains some of the almost exciting artworks produced in this century. Of class, I know more than a few philosophers who are interested in street fine art but who oasis't, and probably wouldn't, write a philosophical newspaper virtually it. I don't quite sympathize why — especially since it'southward and so much fun.
Williamsburg, Brooklyn
HV: What themes did you run into in the submissions yous received for the conference and the papers you finally selected?
NR: My co-organizers and I were thrilled to become many, many more skillful submissions than nosotros could mayhap have, and they covered a wide range of topics: whether illegality is a necessary status for street art; whether "the street" provides a uniform audience; whether street art is a counterexample to popular ways of thinking virtually the nature of art; whether street art tin can play a distinctive office in the advancement of feminist causes; how we should recollect virtually the preservation of street art — should nosotros treat it like ruins or equally a performance? That's a very pocket-sized sample of the fascinating and challenging questions posed by the papers we received. Information technology proved to us beyond any doubt that street art is a rich topic for philosophical discussion.
On Bedford Avenue, Williamsburg, Brooklyn
HV: Philosophically, do you lot see any differences between street art and graffiti? What differentiates them?
NR: I think they're different art forms, but in that location's room for disagreement. (I've argued for the stardom in an academic newspaper on street art). I'chiliad hoping we will discuss the effect at the conference. My idea is that graffiti should be distinguished by its connexion to a sure attitude and writing style that developed in Philadelphia and NYC in the '70s and '80s. As such its closest artistic relative is calligraphy. I think of street fine art as fine art that uses the street artistically. Some graffiti does that and some doesn't, so some graffiti is street art and some isn't. I recall that's the right determination, and it's ane that plays out in the street. Lots of graffiti writers hate street fine art, and lots of street artists ignore graffiti. Of course, lots of painters hate other painters, and so perhaps that doesn't cut either style!
HV: How has your understanding of the field changed in the last decade, considering street fine art has increasingly converged with more conventional contemporary art and commercialization? Has information technology fabricated for a more problematic topic of contemplation or a richer one?
NR: This is a great question, and something we'll discuss a lot at the conference, especially in the artist panel discussion. Also, I'm very excited nearly Alison Young's keynote lecture, which is near the mainstreaming of street art and graffiti.
My own view is that people are besides quick to have that street fine art is something that can exist commercialized, "gallerized," or otherwise bought, sold, and hyped up for the marketplace, but my views well-nigh that have to do with what I remember it means to employ the street artistically. The street is a cultural space, one of the essential functions of which is to promote public interaction by facilitating self-expression. That'due south a office that a space can have more or less, and it'southward one that a space can lose. Lots of public art isn't street fine art considering it transforms the space from the street into an art space. Famous or hyped-up street artists are in danger of doing that to the infinite their art uses. Hype, fame, and mainstreaming tin have an extremely pernicious event on street fine art — that's just i of the means.
It's a topic that's on everyone's listen because of things like Oxygen's Street Art Throwdown show. (Tatyana is a judge on the show, then I'm sure she'll have an interesting perspective on it.) I think the mainstreaming of street art and graffiti take made information technology an fifty-fifty richer topic of contemplation, but I worry that it's had a negative upshot on street art production. Merely compare the NYC mural at present to the way it was 10 years ago. Yous were there! I tin't wait to hear what Leon Reid IV and ELBOW-TOE take to say about this.
HV: I've noticed a reluctance on the office of academics to embrace street fine art and graffiti, like to the reluctance I've seen at museums to exhibiting the piece of work. Why practise you think that is? Is there something specific to the fields that threaten power structures or experts, or is it something else?
NR: Who knows?! Why don't universities accept skateparks? Simply seriously, I mentioned why I think philosophers haven't paid much attention to information technology, though I should add that the late Arthur Danto is an exception. He wrote about graffiti in the '80s and recognized some of its powers and limitations, though he wrote primarily in his capacity as an art critic for The Nation.
Nigh of the academic piece of work on street art and graffiti has come from sociology and anthropology. The actually weird thing is that art history seems especially uninterested in street art and graffiti. There are some exceptions (eastward.g. more than a few masters theses), simply I don't know why there aren't more established experts in academia. Our conference is a step in the correct direction. I'd be really happy if it helped street art and graffiti notice a more secure place in academia.
I hope your readers volition consider coming to the briefing! We're really proud that it'due south free, open to the public, and contains a wide range of views on topics nosotros're all just commencement to explore. Come come across and discuss what artists do on the street — come hear them explicate what they love, what they're thinking, and why they do what they do. And come hear some actually, actually smart people explain what they detect then fascinating most it.
Philosophy of Street Art: Art in and of the Street takes place March v–7 at Pratt Institute (200 Willoughby Ave, Clinton Hill, Brooklyn) and New York University (5 Washington Place, 1st flooring auditorium, Greenwich Village, Manhattan).
Source: https://hyperallergic.com/187981/a-conference-considers-the-philosophy-of-street-art/
0 Response to "Riggle Thinks That No Graffiti Can Be Street Art"
Post a Comment