Alan,
I would find arguments in favor of graffiti's artistic appeal more convincing if they included postings referring the commenter's private collection of graffiti.
Graffiti is a form which translates well into the more traditional venues -- that is, one could easily acquire graffiti canvases. Nor would it be difficult to commission graffiti on the walls of your home, or on your own car.
Thus, my scepticism. If graffiti is so desireable, why don't more people purchase it for their personal enjoyment?
Alan,
If I wanted to be snippy, I would point out that comparing graffiti to billboard advertising is weak support, indeed.
But that would be cheap and dishonest.
Truthfully, I believe billboard advertising to be generally much better than graffiti. I will go so far as to state the worst in billboard advertising, Muzak, architecture, and automobile design, and gardening --awful though that may be -- is far above all but the very best (top 0.01%) of graffiti.
An independent, and more important, issue is that of scope. While all the things you mentioned do intrude into public space, their scope is limited. No one is going to apply their front lawn landscaping vision to Central Park. But no such constraint exists for graffiti.
This is a common issue with much that falls under the catagory of "outsider art", and one which is in itself a fascinating topic for discussion.
Quite right, Teresa...I was ambiguous and the confusion is my fault...
I intended to communicate that I saw no need to explain the saying "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining", not Jeremy's question about the difference between a superior and master.
Jeremy, as for the difference between superior and master, I am reminded of the old joke:
Q: What is the difference between an egg and an elephant?
A: If you don't know, I am not sending you out for a dozen eggs!
Similarly, if you are unsure of the difference between a superior (or senior) and a master, I would suggest you refrain from discussing chain of command with any large group of Marines.
Master implies complete dominance and ownership, as in relation to a slave or a dog. Superior is used in the sense of being of higher rank or authority.
I believe your question arises because Superior can also be used in the term of being of greater value or worth, or of higher nature. Such is NOT the context in which it is used when discussing military rank.
Seemingly minor distinction, yet a core tenet in the service.
(And now, I know, I am channeling Frasier Crane. Forgive me.)
One is not required, or even able to refuse orders from a master. A superior, however, is obeyed only within the scope of his authority. Not only can orders outside that scope be disobeyed, they must be disobeyed. As such, a member of the United States Armed Forces, whether a Private or a General, is an agent with final responsibility only to the constitution and citizenry of the United States of America, obliged to follow orders as are given within, and only within, proper scope of authority. To imply that a serviceman serves a master -- other than the constitution and citizenry of the United States -- is in my book a grave insult. One who has not served might be excused such an insult on grounds of ignorance. A veteran has no such excuse.
One more thing -- "I was just following orders" is not in and of itself a defense of an action. It must also be proved that:
a) Such orders were, to the knowledge and understanding of the person following the orders (NOT the person giving them), legal and within the scope of authority
b) It is assumed that the person following the orders has a certain responsibility for knowing whether orders are legal and within scope. Thus, a Private might be excused for following orders regarding the destruction of military property, even if the order were illegal, presuming that the Private thought the order to be legal. On the other hand, since looting prisoners is a big no-no which is taught in basic training, the looting of prisoners would not be excusable even if ordered by a Superior.
Does this better answer your question?
Oh, dear. I guess I didn't make my point.
Reason for "snippiness" (I was trying for wry, but eye of the beholder and all that, I suppose): Overfed artistes channeling Frasier Crane and swooning over an "art" form which, aside from being vandalism, is, quite honestly, crap.
Really...you practically beg me to comment, then say I'm snippy. Not fair, darling.
Is there some other reason you object to inner-city graffiti artists?
Yes, there is -- The same reason you might object to someone taking it upon themselves to populate those same spaces with giant "Precious Moments" murals and statuary.
Much as you are unable to fully appreciate the sublime genius that is "Precious Moments", I lack the taste necessary to enthusiastically embrace graffiti art. I suspect that there are many that share this deficiency.
Do I make my point?
Obvious point, Lou. Got any more?
Why, yes I do. Thank you for asking, Teresa.
1) These guys are farm league at best. A competent commercial artist could out-perform them on their own turf, with their own media, and in their own venue and style.
2) A little goes a long way. Seeing it once or twice on your own terms is different from being immersed in it. Venue can be the difference between a thing of beauty and a public nuisance.
3) The price you pay for the stuff worth looking at is all the stuff that isn't. An easy price to pay in a gallery or a museum. Not so easy when you don't have the option of just walking away from it.
4) It doesn't age well. Five years and the best of it is sad and faded. Not the ideal public work of art.
5) Teresa, I am glad you are not running the city. If the citizens, enraged by graffiti, tarred and feathered you and ran you out of town on a rail, who would keep up your delightful blog?
6) Inside this topic there is a long-winded discussion about public works of art that is just dying to get out.
7) In oppressive societies, graffiti art is significant. In urban America, graffiti is not the result of artistic spirit constrained by oppression, but of artistic spirit unrealized and uncontrolled. It is flabby, lazy, unchallenged art.
8) A delightful 200 hours or so cleaning up their own work, followed by directions to a local art supply store, would do society, art, and the individuals themselves a world of good.
adamsj:
How about your share of the public property at, say Yellowstone Park?
Jeremy,
When it was my privelege to serve, I learned that those who wear the Eagle, Globe and Anchor have a saying:
Don't piss on my leg and tell me that it is raining.
Given the high level of intelligence and mastery of the English language invariably posessed by those who frequent Teresa's blog (no, I am not being sarcastic), I do not feel the need to explain.
I am, and I will, thank you.
His "masters", Paula? Pardon me. Until I read the comments, I had thought that this posting made a good break with the snotty tone of former commentary on this subject. Silly me.
I just assume that when someone spends so much time around the artifacts of refined culture and civilization, one picks up a certain amount of refinement and civility -- Certainly enough to understand the differences in how one refers to an intelligent, dedicated, self-sacrificing human being and how one refers to a dog.
Please, make no mistake. Coming from Texas, I have no problem with people who regard dogs as if they were human. It is the ones who regard humans as if they were dogs that set my teeth on edge.
Yes, some of it can be quite beautiful -- when it's not on your property. I don't see many people making their houses, garages, or businesses available to encourage this art form.
Funny how that works.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2003 | 12 |
Total: 12 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Sweet Lou:
Show all comments by Sweet Lou.