Don't Listen When They Tell You Not To Take A Second Look

This is a good example of the different kinds of street art. This is a wall in Bremen, Germany, and the main piece that is focused on was done by the international artist Armsrock. His piece is the wheatepaste of the man walking. However, surrounding the man are tags and a few stencils, with at the far left some advertisements. As you can see there is beauty in this, and is pure art not vandalism. The wheatepaste is probably much nicer to look at and culturally richer than whatever the advertisement maybe beside it.

         

Everybody has a sentiment when it comes to street art. No one just looks at an image on the wall that was placed there illicitly to be seen by as many as possible, and just feels nothing. Its simply not possible. What those sentiments are of individuals vary greatly. A lot of times when someone sees the illegal image they suppress the natural feeling that arises inside of them with their preconceived emotions that they have gained from parents, institutions, jurisdiction, actually by mainstream society in general. These taught opinions then over take so all they see is a crime, degradation of society, and decay, ignoring the beauty right in front of them.

         

I had the same sentiment about street art once. All my life I was told only negative things about this artistic expression.  Teachers, movies, TV shows, programs at school, and especially my parents all waving a huge finger right in front of my face telling me that drawing on the wall is a crime and morally wrong.  Although, at the same time, I had a different influence about this culture from everywhere else. Reading and seeing graffiti in magazines and video games, my friends general like of the imagery and thrill of it all, and seeing the imagery on many different products that I consumed around that time, like clothes, CDs, and in the skateboarding culture. So you can imagine how conflicted I was anytime I saw it in person and trying to distinguish how I truly felt about it. Anytime I saw street art, I would immediately become enthralled and interested and want to stare, touch, and contemplate the piece. Then, voices would creep into my head telling me no, this is a crime, this is morally detrimental, this is someone's precious property! Then all of sudden I would become fearful to be associated with it.

Unfortunately,  those feelings that overtook the original ones are how most people view this type of art.  I feel most people go through the same battle with in themselves when confronted with street art, on whether to accept it or reject it. This just shows how much the authorities of municipalities have conditioned us to fit their criteria when dealing with this so-called “vandalism epidemic”. Shamefully most cities around the world see this artistic movement in the same light and deal with it as a harmful criminal activity that is to receive no tolerance what-so-ever. Some cities have tried to deal with street art in a progressive respectful manner, by negotiating compromise between its residents, artists, and authorities. However, this approach usually always turns to a total criminalization of illicit public art.  The city of Melbourne, Australia is a very goo example of this in there policies that were applied to street art and graffiti in 2005 to recently. At first they tried to create a balance in the community and a compromise where everyone would be content. This would be done mainly by zones: a no tolerance zone where no graffiti was allowed, then a limited tolerance zone where graffiti was permitted with consent by property owners, finally a tolerance zone which was a space for artists to do work without consent and hassle from authorities. However, this plan was suddenly rejected by the city council and a new “zero tolerance” plan was issued, with total criminalization of any illicit street art. Then with the recent high brow popularization of street art and graffiti and its new high priced market niche, the city council decided it would be appropriate to protect street artwork that was considered “important” and continue to eliminate all else.

This stance Melbourne took is very hypocritical. Street art shouldn't been seen as a moral dilemma or delinquent activity. It should be embraced for the art that it is and the beauty that it provides and the statements that it shouts. A compromise between citizens, artists, and authorities can do a city much more good than total eradication could accomplish. Instead of trying to erase; we need to see the pictures on the walls and hear what they have to say.

Laneway in Melbourne, Australia. It is absolutely covered in graffiti and street art. Layers upon layers of different styles, and art from locals but also international artists. These laneways were once a disgusting sight to the authorities of Melbourne. However, now they are internationally renowned and one of the city's most prize possessions.

Citation:

Armsrock. (n.d.).  Retrieved March 31, 2011, from http://unurth.com/42589/Armsrock-Bremen.

 

Burg, J. (2006). Beauty, INTERRUPTED. Parks & Recreation, 41(9), 104-107. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from the Academic Search Complete Database.

 

Laneway in Melbourne. (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2011, http://out-of-sync.com/collaboration/?p=51.

Young, A. (2010, February). Negotiated consent or zero tolerance? Responding to graffiti and street art in Melbourne. City, 14(1/2), 99-114. Retrieved March 22, 2011, from Academic Search Complete Database.