There's a chalk artist, named Nikolas Larsen, who lives in the mission and draws on the sidewalk leaving, what he calls in a video on his blogspot, a "gift for the community." His video also talks about the impossibility of making money off of street art (hence the "gift for community" comment), especially since the chalk medium he works with is so temporary, unlike the permanence and history of the Balmy Alley murals.
(Nikolas Larsen's Cosmic Spectral Accelerator, 25th and Shotwell)
My last post also dealt with accessible art in San Francisco, and I guess I'm getting interested in the lengths communities go to in order to preserve things that are important outside of monetary gains. Both Balmy Alley murals and these chalk drawings get continual criticism for not being "real art" (whatever that means) in a city that has so rapidly lost its inability to support artists because of its high cost of living. And then when art does find a way to pervade the concrete walls and asphalt floors, it is immediately commodified for tourist consumption, like the North Beach and its ties to the Beat Generation - a place that was once a haven for counter cultural art now has a reputation for its history, and therefore has more worth, making it hard for artists to live there anymore.
If we let it be, is it really art? Or does it need value in the form of dollar signs to have worth?
As someone with no artistic skill whatsoever, I think that your comment on the idea of "real art" is really important. The fact of the matter is that art is not a static definition or idea. It is the same argument that people have been having for centuries between "high art" and "low art." Even recent artistic forms that have gained popularity recently, like slam poetry, graffiti, and performance art are challenged by the artistic canon. One cannot exactly put a performance art piece in a museum or put a slam poem in a gallery. Since these artistic forms deviate from our preconceived ideas of what art is, people are quick to say that it just does not count as "real art."
ReplyDeleteAs someone with no artistic skill whatsoever, I think that your comment on the idea of "real art" is really important. The fact of the matter is that art is not a static definition or idea. It is the same argument that people have been having for centuries between "high art" and "low art." Even recent artistic forms that have gained popularity recently, like slam poetry, graffiti, and performance art are challenged by the artistic canon. One cannot exactly put a performance art piece in a museum or put a slam poem in a gallery. Since these artistic forms deviate from our preconceived ideas of what art is, people are quick to say that it just does not count as "real art."
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of these temporary pieces of art being a “gift for the community.” I think in the absurd, biased debate about what constitutes “high” or “real” art, people forget that all art really is a gift and should be treated as such, no matter who the audience is or where it is placed.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe art has to have a monetary value in order to be considered art. That being said, I believe there are different forms of art. The political works of art we saw in Balmy alley for example,or the billboard corrections we learned about, weren't intended to make money for the artists or residents but to make a political statement. Other art forms such this chalk art seem to be more for the temporary enjoyment of the community; however they also do not seek any monetary compensation. The idea of time is also interesting when regarding art. The political art was meant to convey issues happening at the time even if they remained after being solved. This chalk art is "temporary" yet is still valued by those who see it. No matter how long it lasts, or how long the authorities let it last, art is art. Furthermore, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and whatnot and so is art I suppose.
ReplyDelete