I suppose if you think about it, murals have existed from the moment man could draw, as is evident in Cave paintings. Perhaps creating murals in a caveman context meant visualizing and expressing thought or action in such a way that transcended the laws of speech/verbal communication. It could be argued that art (in all its forms) functions in that same way today in that it provides an alternative mode of expression for those who utilize it.
But art goes beyond 'those who utilize it' and into 'those who appreciate it.' Surely this appreciation goes beyond aesthetically pleasing visuals and into realms of understanding that outline art as a force that provides meaning in a world that doesn't make sense. This dichotomy between artist and onlooker surely relates to the difficult link between appreciation and understanding of art vs. its commodification. Considering this opposition makes me question how much the Beat writers truly wanted their art (writing) to be recognized and appreciated for fear of its commodification in popular culture? I don't have an answer to this question but I think that it's important to consider when we think and talk about San Franciscan art and artists.
Here is a timelapse video of a mural that was done by one of my fellow international students. It can be seen at the back of College 10, next to the International Living Center:
I like your comment about Cave paintings, it definitely puts things in perspective. I definitely think that the context that an art piece inhabits definitely has as much to do with the meaning as the content of an art piece. When looking at a painting as a mural, it seeks to represent something integral to a community, whereas a gallery painting represents the values of the artist or the museum.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI just wrote a pretty long comment but accidentally deleted it... but I think the gist of it was that the distinction between artist and onlooker that you pointed out is interesting to me and directly applies to Beat literature. Particularly, it reminds me of Bob Kaufman's work and his reluctance to publish it. From what I remember in lecture, it was his wife, Eileen, who took charge in the publishing of most of his work. It makes me wonder about the reasons you stated about the under-appreciation of murals. Perhaps this is something I may have overlooked in lecture, but maybe Kaufman feared exactly this - the commodification of his work, or, on an entirely different level, as you stated, "in a world that doesn't make sense," while he was already under scrutiny for his mental illnesses, his work might be completely overlooked or criticized.
ReplyDelete“Imagine a city where graffiti wasn't illegal, a city where everybody could draw whatever they liked. Where every street was awash with a million colours and little phrases. Where standing at a bus stop was never boring. A city that felt like a party where everyone was invited, not just the estate agents and barons of big business. Imagine a city like that and stop leaning against the wall - it's wet.”
ReplyDelete― Banksy, Wall and Piece
I think its interesting that you bring up the topic of art vs commodification. I want to talk about Balmy Alley specifically. Thee are many people that give tours to tourist who find these murals as something cool rather that actually taking the time to understand that these Murals have a history. In the mission especially, with political and artistic activism took place during the U.S. involvement in Latin America. These murals convey messages of oppression against the brown body and global issues like privatization of natural resources in Latin America.
ReplyDelete