Street Subversion: Political Statements Through Time
It is fair to say that for most artists, the overall goal of their work is to “educate the masses”, regardless of what form or type of art he/she pursues. Reclaiming San Francisco specifically focuses on murals and street art under an umbrella of a contemporary postmodernist wall painting.
However, I think that this umbrella has changed significantly through time. The book talks about “Los Tres Grandes” and Mexican murals of the 1920s. These murals are a celebration of the poor working ethnic families, a celebration that was at the time often frowned upon (and actually still is, look at some of the murals in downtown Los Angeles...scary similar).
SF Rivera Mural:
Los Angeles Mural:
Another thing that I was thinking about while reading Reclaiming San Francisco is the upkeep of these murals. Rivera died in the 50’s...so who’s job is it to keep these murals looking beautiful?
Interesting article in the SF Gate that I read if you are interested!
On a side note I also want to mention that here in Santa Cruz there is an ongoing battle with the city over restoring murals. I forget how much money, but the City of Santa Cruz has an allotted amount of money for the upkeep of public art, however there is little to nothing being done to fix the already painted murals from the 60’s and 70’s. Instead, the City is only using the allocated funds to paint new murals, all they are letting the older murals be whitewashed and slowly disappear overtime. Kind of an interesting little side note.
Anyways. Moving onto street art. So when comparing current street (not just graffiti also billboard altering as the reading says), I find it terribly difficult to compare the two in such an interchangeable, relative way -- especially in the way that they are talked about in the text. It seems to segue into talking about street art it this really easy, perhaps even slightly ignorant way. Yes, they are both beautiful pieces of art, methods of art, public art. But it seems to me that it is somewhat degrading to lump the two together under an umbrella of postmodern contemporary wall painting.
Yes, they make similar statements, but they are period pieces. If a street artist travelled back through time they would probably be thrown into jail for the work they do. Vice versa for mural painting? No...but there is a stigma that comes with street art that makes it powerful.
If a portion of this was done on a corner or sidewalk people wouldn't notice it. It would probably be though of a just a tag, not art. So why, when its mulitplied X times, does it become art? Who draws the line? Food for thought I guess.
Great post! I agree with you about lines with art- I guess you could say the beauty (or art) lies in the eye of the beholder, but I'm not sure that's completely accurate. I'm left wondering if it takes the approval of other artists or critics to be labeled as art, and if everything is actually art, and we just filter our perception from the opinion of other viewers. Is art something that has to be communally named?
ReplyDeleteI had no idea about the Santa Cruz mural funding/lack of upkeep, good to know! I like what you are saying about political statements in murals, and the stigma's that accompany street art and artists. I also think that street art and graffiti can (and are) often used to make political statements. And if you consider the fact that murals are "okayed" by the city, whereas street art is illegal, it makes the political or cultural statements of street art all the more real.
ReplyDelete