The Adnostic

Street art. Urban art. Graffiti art. Whatever you may call it, it is a form of self expression and social commentary that constantly walks the line between defacement and public good.

Growing up I used to think graffiti was the evidence of social decline and I supported community leaders who wished to rid their neighborhoods of the hastily drawn tags and unwelcome painted walls. I still think tagging is crude, but that's not the point. The point is that graffiti has improved and my consciousness has expanded to the point of being able to accept it as a legitimate art form. It helps that every day I see more and murals that truly express an artist's social commentary (Shepard Fairey), prankster tendencies (Banksy), or are simply well done.

But is it the most important present day art form? Does ubiquity and mass access and ownership make a street artist's work more powerful than an artist's who chooses to hang his/her work in a gallery?

It might. Internet accessibility advocates insist that no human being should be denied access to information and expressions on web due to their disability, political climate, or income level. Would the same not be true for art? Private ownership, galleries, and museums restrict access to art. Not usually in a bad way, but restricted none the less. Graffiti can be interpreted as an ephemeral form of public installation without the mess of a city approval process. Just a prankster, some paint, and the cover of night.

I think we would have less of an issue with outdoor advertising as urban spam if advertisers would see themselves more as artist with the potential of contributing to the public space rather then simply attractors of attention.

[video via PSFK]