chichimera: Is that your definition of art? :) Not mine, but I'm very happy to run with it.
chichimera: . Do you think that the painter of the picture No.1 had the intention to make art? Or was he/she just expressing whatever he/she felt like expressing? Yet, for some reason it's called art - maybe because it's a couple of thousands years older than the painting you posted... He/she had the intention to create art. The Lascaux cave paintings aren't instruction diagrams; those handprints are there to create an impression on those who see it. Their existance so many years later intensifies that - it takes us away from the mundane. Grafitti has the opposite effect.
chichimera: Why not? What does it mean "to be accepted as a sculpture"? By whom? By the public? The observer.
chichimera: By whom? By the public? It has been proven many times that the public will accept as art anything named so by the media :( So often the media criticise art for not being art. I remember well the brouhaha about Carl Andre's Bricks at the Tate Gallery. Art creates an effect on the observer. Now as for grafitti - Banksy's stuff creates an effect, it makes the observer think differently. An illegible scrawl on the side of a building (itself architecture) just irritates because it is destructive. Art can be a transformation - but can a pointless destruction be art?
chichimera: I don't know. I don't like it as graffiti. The message of it is not readable to me The message is that damaging it with a spray can is more naughty than just spitting on it.
chichimera: perhaps the building's owner is a vile man and the message means "You should repent!".. lol Now that would be interesting - if it was readable as such - but it isn't.
BTW, Your picture number 2 is art, leaving metaphorical number twos with spray paint is just destruction.
|