After today’s class I went and looked up some of Banksy’s pieces on Google. I found one that particularly stuck with me:
A photo taken of Banksy street art in London. Found at: http://streetartlondon.co.uk/blog/2011/04/26/banksy-street-art-clipstone-street-fitzrovia/
I feel like this piece is particularly powerful because of its blatant contradictions.
“If graffiti changed anything, it would be illegal.”
Obviously, graffiti is illegal. Thus, Banksy’s point is made clearly through this painting: Graffiti does have the power to change things and that is why people in power don’t want it to exist.
It reminded me of the conversation we had today about what kind of art is allowed in public space, who dictates it, and of course the tearing down of 5Pointz.
I feel like graffiti is so powerful because it is raw. It portrays a viewpoint of a generally voiceless community. Sam commented on one of my last posts something along the lines of this: graffiti is the only outlet that some people have, so we have to let their voices be heard. If we do, it can have the power to change everything.
I most definitely agree with many points made in your post, such as that it is one way people without a voice can really show how they feel, however I do not think that graffiti is illegal because it has the power to change things. There are many instances of graffiti that take place on very important historic buildings. There is no reason this “raw” form of art takes precedence over great works of architecture. There are times when graffiti is actually legal and allowed. In fact upon looking it up there are some graffiti walls that allow artists to paint. The other problem with graffiti is that since it usually is unregulated, it is often too “raw.” Some images may be upsetting to others or even offensive. It really is a gray area, looking at the work at 5 Pointz I do find a lot of it, pleasant to look.
Honestly when it came to the work at 5Pointz, I didn’t necessarily find the art appealing. It was more the principle behind tearing it down that bothered me. I completely see where you’re coming from, and I agree! I don’t believe that this kind of art should take precedence over historic buildings or peoples’ private property. However, I also am bothered by the idea that it is specifically restricted. Graffiti is the style of art that is most reflective of the masses in society: “raw”, rebellious, and sometimes a little edgy. I don’t know if the pieces of work themselves have the power to change anything. However, allowing those that usually have no voice in society to have an outlet is healthy. Restricting it is troublesome to me.