Modern Circa Now – if you live in Chicago you’ve seen this all over the city since the opening of the new Modern Wing at the Art Institute downtown. The fantastic building houses incredible pieces from Modern Arts most important figures and does a fantastic job representing the art world today. This morning the building was targeted by members of H20 and MUL crews in Chicago for an (arguably) equally fantastic set of pieces to be displayed for the general public. As I write this it is being sandblasted off the wall, I might add at an incredibly slow pace, leaving just dark gray stains in place of the brilliant color that once was. This coming just over a week after H20 was featured in the Sun Times and Tribune for painting a house in the historic and very wealthy Gold Coast neighborhood, there is quite a stir in the air right now about what exactly is happening or going to happen, or just what this all means. A few of the most glaring points of discussion are obviously the chosen locations of the pieces. What does it mean when graffiti moves out of the ghetto and into a neighborhood where you can see a Picasso through a living room window? Even more so what does it mean to paint a building specifically built for housing similar Picasso’s and Pashke’s? There’s almost too much too discuss here. Look at the language used in the Tribune artical above. There is no hatred toward the writers as in the past, instead it is replaced with a generally confused voice that acknowledges the art but simply wishes it were elsewhere. Talking to people on the street this morning the general response to the Museum attack was acclaim – “this is beautiful” “why are they cleaning it and removing the color?”
Meanwhile, if we want to be respected as artists, we must respect other artists. This isn’t just another building, it’s a work of art in itself. This could be said theoretically about any building, but this new building in particular is an acclaimed piece by an architect known world wide (Renzo Piano). So then what does it mean to write “This is our Modern Art” on a Modern Art building housing thousands of pieces of “real” art? For one it helped me realize for the first time my responsibility as a writer who also practices art. It’s beyond the point of debate – graffiti will be discussed as a real movement of art for a long time coming. It’s things like this however that will help to push it out of the oldschool way of thinking and into the new school appreciation. Whether you like it or not this is a pivotal point in graffiti history.
This is the first piece of graffiti in a minute that has gotten me really excited. Not because it is particularly spectacular, but because of the buzz and conversation it sparked. Walking by it you can literally feel it in the air – it feels like it actually belongs and it hurts to see it being removed – not just by myself but everyone. In a city like Chicago, known for it’s (Daley’s) historic hatred of graffiti and the general public’s love of art, this is really groundbreaking. I can’t wait any longer for a statement from the museum regarding it and to see how they react – likewise the Architect, to know if he feels victimized.
In short, I think this group of hooligans deserves a round of applause. Not only for their daring, but for the discussion and excitement that their actions invoked. You can taste it in the air, and it tastes like sandblasting, but it’s gonna be an interesting year for Chicago graffiti. This truly is Modern Art Circa Now, and if you aren’t ready to understand it then get out of the way, cause now it’s coming to you wherever you may be.
You know, I have to disagree here. While I am an enormous fan of graffiti art, this appears to be nothing more than gang tagging. I say the word “appears” in the true form of it’s definition, I have no idea what those pieces mean to the artist, they just look like tagging at a glance. This is what I want out of graffiti art: http://www.woostercollective.com/
You want to be respected as artists, make art. I would stop and stare at any one of those pictures on the site I just shared (and there are a lot more graffiti art sites I realize) but would not look twice at the stuff displayed here.
Purely my opinion, I am not a graffiti artist, I just enjoy the work done.
The Modern Wing graf seems to plant itself firmly on the outside, pounding on the walls to get in. But I don’t think that was the right way to do it.
Can graffiti transition itself fully into a gallery setting, whether museum or otherwise? I wrote an article for ArtSlant titled “The Unfulfilled Promise of Graffiti” which explored that possibility. One response from readers was that graf is fundamentally tied to the street and to being illegal. This would seem to confirm that.
Yes- this is exciting, but not in the way you go on about. I’m hoping it marks a point beyond which this city gets serious about punishing the perpetrators of this form of visual-terrorism. Most people don’t want to see tags everywhere they go, but they have to because a small group of talentless self-obsessed goons demand they do. Hard to believe (for you), isn’t it, that someone might want this fascist crap to go away. It’s not about art and it’s not about fighting the system- it’s simply about demoralizing others for pleasure- sadism, in short.
You got me thinking for sure. I hadn’t seen it, but read about it. My first thought was, oh, no. Then I saw it and saw your post and now I’m more like, oh, wow. I think it’d be a pretty brave move to just leave it be.
I firmly believe in the artistic possibilities represented in graffiti. I have seen examples of truly awe inspiring work, and would love to see more artistically motivated graffiti around the city. However, I was sincerely disappointed to see that artists targeted the Modern Wing. Though I see where you are coming from that graffiti is modern art and deserves representation within a modern art museum, this was not a positive way of sending that message.
All the artists did in putting their graffiti on the Modern Wing was show their ignorance about art. Renzo Piano’s architecture is all about simple clean lines and forms. Every element of the wing was carefully thought out – every angle, color, line and stone considered. Thoughtlessly painting brightly colored forms on the exterior of a building that is all about being subdued, showed complete disregard for the artist behind the building. If this action was supposed to be a representation of where graffiti is headed, it caused me to greatly reduce my respect and enthusiasm for the art form. Furthermore, the Art Institute is a private institution struggling to make ends meet in a bad economy. Now they are threatened with the expense and threat of the Modern Wing being permanently compromised. And graffiti artists have undoubtedly lost the respect of the major institution of the city I assume they were hoping to eventually gain the favor of.
There are plenty of places in the city where graffiti would be appropriate and welcome — the Art Institute and other privately owned buildings are not among them. I think it would be healthy to brainstorm some ideas of where graffiti might make a positive mark on our city.
One place that occurred to me is the scaffolding that adorns so many of our buildings across the city. Lynn Becker, architecture critic for the Chicago Reader, wrote two interesting posts on the subject of scaffolding and its potential for greatness. One post in his blog was about a scaffolding competition: http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/2010/01/scaffolds-slum-up-chicago-streets-has.html
And another was about an example of scaffolding getting decorated and beautified by artwork: http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/search?q=scaffold+salvation
I think graffiti could easily be used to beautify the city in this manner. It’s about time that graffiti artists and the city began working together. However, if graffiti artists continue to target significant pieces of architecture, or private property in general without permission, I will start siding with the city against graffiti artists’ efforts.
For me it’s one more historic step like banksy gradual uprising, Tate modern intervention, the pichação in Choque Cultural, hobbo novel in London, BNE in NY…
My work goes all around this subject (check:http://urbanheatmap.blogspot.com/), as a researcher a producer and creative protagonist. The reflexion until now led me into the conclusion that there are several fronts that must be worked simultaneously to deal with this issue, this fronts are:
1 transmit to the responsible technicians (architects, designers, engineers …) that this kind of manifestations (not only graffiti) are effective realities like other construction and management constrainments (ex: the rain, the wind…) this way they could act in full knowledge and not only put it in the same drawer (vandalism) that broken glass. Ignore, incorporate, defend, and others are possible postures, but the most important it’s to be conscient of the decision.
2 talk, talk, talk, give space to dialogue, improve participation, involve into the community all the ones that what to make creative and positive inputs into the public space, discuss in conferences, talks, workshops, spread the knowledge about how it works, clarify the preconceived notions trough multidisciplinary and socially unsegmented forums, publications, inventories, historic references, improve research and non commercial communication.
3 incorporation into the urban landscape giving conditions for big productions, at the same time defining policies for small interventions, cleaning fast and protecting (point 1) all the surfaces that are for some reason aren’t suitable, promoting the positive practices trough honest freedom.
Yeah I gotta agree with you here. This is in my opinion the closest graffiti should ever come to being on display at a museum – on the outside, illegally. I’m not condoning anything here, simply saying that thats really the only way it can exist in a “museum setting” and truly remain real.
First of all, you can’t pin me down like that, or anyone else for that matter. I fully understand that many people would like to see graffiti go. That makes absolute sense to me – It’s an aggresive in your face medium that has really taken the whole world now by surprise. It began to pop up seemingly out of nowhere and because they didn’t ask for it, they don’t see the point of keeping it around. But you must look at it realistically. You can’t just make people stop doing anything, try as you might. That fact is tried and true with criminal behavior – it’s clear by now that higher punishments for drugs or even DUI’s won’t stop anyone, just perhaps deter others. But imagine someone told you to stop biking to work because it pisses them off – you aren’t going to do that are you? Graffiti is life to some and a hobby to others, and while I’m not saying that it need be deemed acceptable behavior, punishing someone more severely for doing what they love is 1. not going to stop them from anything and 2. probably only going to further criminal behavior, especially if prison time is served.
I understand your frustration and what seems to be the general mindset of your peers. But there are very few writers who’s goal is to force you into misery. No one is specifically targeting you and trying to make your life worse. You’re doing it to yourself by making it seem that way. At the end of the day, graffiti is still pretty harmless. You can remove it with a roller in seconds and no one is being physically or financially torn because of it. I personally wish they would arrest every one that wears Ed Hardy jeans and flog them for rediculousness. But that’s just because it’s annoying to me, not because they’re harming anyone or inherently a douche. Graffiti is hardy sadism – it’s more just like the Lost Boys from Peter Pan.
I think a lengthy prison sentence of about 5-10 yrs. should suffice. Graffiti artist who choose to deface public and private property are simply criminals hiding behind art. If it walks like a vandal and talks like a vandal, its a vandal. They’re artistic thugs who should be locked up with all the other gang-bangers who have no respect for others’ property. Ghetto behavior! Crimes against humanity! OUTRAGEOUS!
Obnoxious. Graffiti is meant to light up ugly and dark spaces, somewhere like an abandoned factory or the side of a train or an underpass. The Modern Wing already looks nice, it doesn’t need graffiti on the outside – defeats the entire intention of what the artist was going after. I understand what he was trying to do, but it’s just obnoxious.
You know, I have to disagree here. While I am an enormous fan of graffiti art, this appears to be nothing more than gang tagging. I say the word “appears” in the true form of it’s definition, I have no idea what those pieces mean to the artist, they just look like tagging at a glance. This is what I want out of graffiti art: http://www.woostercollective.com/
You want to be respected as artists, make art. I would stop and stare at any one of those pictures on the site I just shared (and there are a lot more graffiti art sites I realize) but would not look twice at the stuff displayed here.
Purely my opinion, I am not a graffiti artist, I just enjoy the work done.
I firmly believe in the artistic possibilities represented in graffiti. I have seen examples of truly awe inspiring work, and would love to see more artistically motivated graffiti around the city. However, I was sincerely disappointed to see that artists targeted the Modern Wing. Though I see where you are coming from that graffiti is modern art and deserves representation within a modern art museum, this was not a positive way of sending that message.
All the artists did in putting their graffiti on the Modern Wing was show their ignorance about art. Renzo Piano’s architecture is all about simple clean lines and forms. Every element of the wing was carefully thought out – every angle, color, line and stone considered. Thoughtlessly painting brightly colored forms on the exterior of a building that is all about being subdued, showed complete disregard for the artist behind the building. If this action was supposed to be a representation of where graffiti is headed, it caused me to greatly reduce my respect and enthusiasm for the art form. Furthermore, the Art Institute is a private institution struggling to make ends meet in a bad economy. Now they are threatened with the expense and threat of the Modern Wing being permanently compromised. And graffiti artists have undoubtedly lost the respect of the major institution of the city I assume they were hoping to eventually gain the favor of.
There are plenty of places in the city where graffiti would be appropriate and welcome — the Art Institute and other privately owned buildings are not among them. I think it would be healthy to brainstorm some ideas of where graffiti might make a positive mark on our city.
One place that occurred to me is the scaffolding that adorns so many of our buildings across the city. Lynn Becker, architecture critic for the Chicago Reader, wrote two interesting posts on the subject of scaffolding and its potential for greatness. One post in his blog was about a scaffolding competition: http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/2010/01/scaffolds-slum-up-chicago-streets-has.html
And another was about an example of scaffolding getting decorated and beautified by artwork: http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/search?q=scaffold+salvation
I think graffiti could easily be used to beautify the city in this manner. It’s about time that graffiti artists and the city began working together. However, if graffiti artists continue to target significant pieces of architecture, or private property in general without permission, I will start siding with the city against graffiti artists’ efforts.