Brennan Hart
Donnell/Stogdill
City of Angels
September 24, 2015
Roundup Post for September 25
What is art? That’s the question I heard Terra ask ironically during our feedback of the Spring Street Bridge tableaus. As defined by Dictionary.com, art is “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.” I think our class can agree that the graffiti we found beneath the bridge is considered art: it was aesthetically pleasing and seemed to hold actual meaning or value. For some, it was the feeling of being welcomed to a unique space amidst the drudgery of concrete government structures. For others, the graffiti was a visual representation of the individuality of Angelenos, even when lost in a city of almost 4 million. Either way, we decided that most of the graffiti added something positive to the setting.
Meanwhile, Mr. Donnell brought up an opposing thought to this idea. The theme for the last lab was ownership, and previously we talked about our personal responsibility to keep public spaces maintained as they were. After our “Tragedy of the Commons” mishap, we finally figured out that abusing whatever was not considered our own (or anything purely in self-interest) would lead to a collapse of the system. Over the last few urban labs there have been different examples of this: leaving trash on the mountain, spray painting what wasn’t ours to spray paint, empty bottles left by the river, etc. Most people condemned these actions and ultimately made a strong argument that it is the individual’s job to uphold “the commons.” So how does graffiti differ from the rest of what we have criticized?
In my own experience, I felt more connected to LA when I saw what others had left behind. I would not go so far as to be happy about litter, but I definitely appreciated the tags others had left behind. Although not scenic murals or specific illustrations, the graffiti that covered the walls by the railroad tracks was awesome. Part of the hype was probably that my group had hopped some fences getting down to the river, so we already felt a little badass, but the overwhelming sense was feeling like part of something bigger than ourselves. We had gone underneath the bridge adjacent to the Spring Street one, which felt almost like a secret clubhouse. The railroad tracks casually suggested a Stand By Me scenario, while the Spanglish tags alluded to the many cultures of Los Angeles. Empty spray cans littered the floor, as did shards of glass bottles, like seaglass without a beach. I was lucky: picking up a random can, there was a tiny bit of yellow paint left--just enough to write the letter B in a rare, unpainted section of the wall. Although the simple letter paled in comparison to the fancy lettering and vibrant energy of the rest of the graffiti, I was left feeling like I had somehow collaborated with the rest of the city.
Now, I guess I am part of the problem: abusing the commons for my own gain. Was it wrong for me to add my mark? Even further, at the end of class today, I started to think about personal responsibility as a larger whole. To what extent to do we owe the community? Where do we draw the line? If the world is the commons, are we being ignorant shepherds? Maybe that is too harsh, but people seem to have a weak sense of obligation when it comes to bettering our world. Or perhaps, they have already tried and failed--after all, “the convergence of dreams leads to a nightmare.”
As someone who is extremely conflicted on this issue and does not have much of an issue with the tagging or what Brennan added to the collection I think the line has to be drawn when our actions begin to hurt other people or things that matter to them. A concrete wall holding a river that hardly ever flows holds little meaning or worth to anyone. Heck, any color on that wall is better than the pasty grey that reminds us of how ugly the LA river truly is in its current state (majority of it). I begin to have an issue with "tagging" or graffiti art when it begins to be placed on things that are not public. There are times when driving that I see tagging on advertisements, sides of 7/11's and on the back of privately owned trucks, and this when I begin to be bothered by this whole thing. Art was never meant to be destructive even in its most radical forms. Art breaks down barriers, not the beauty of things that people have bought and rely on. Just like it is our choice what color we choose to paint our house, it should be our choice what happens to the things that we own. It becomes a very slippery slope pretty quickly the second we start saying that we are ok with tagging in general. I have a feeling we wouldn't like it if every time we drove into school our parking garage was completely tagged with writing that says "Fuck School".
ReplyDeleteI didn't know anyone heard me say that.... but even though I did say "what is art?" ironically, I do mean it. People seem to say everything is art. Some trash on the ground is art just the same as Guernica by Pablo Picasso is art. Don't you find that odd? There has to be a line drawn. I consider myself a visual artist so maybe I have a different perspective on what I consider legitimate art. To be able to manipulate color and texture to evoke feeling is a refined talent that takes practice. It isn't haphazard. It isn't random trash on the ground.
ReplyDeleteBrennan also brought up that she felt more connected to the river and bridge when she saw the graffiti– connected enough to add some herself. I couldn't agree with her more. When we were down under the bridge in this sketchy environment, seeing remnants of makeshift homes and joking about being mugged by tweakers, I should have felt scared. I didn't, though. When I was down there I felt incredibly comfortable, as if once you added to the wall, you were connected to a community with a secret. A secret hidden right beneath the heavily driven surface of the bridge. There was something so beautiful about the respect each artist had for another person's art. It made me feel the need to memorialize the place myself with a silver angle I painted on an open spot.
I think a big distinction we developed today was a difference between tagging and graffiti. Most of us seemed to legitimize the latter because of its thought and beauty. Reading this post and these comments, however, brings out something more important about graffiti. Street art in Los Angeles is truly defined by respect and collaboration. I hate to reject Dr. Stogdill's quote, but time and time again Los Angeles reminds us that a convergence of dreams leads to something uniquely true. This convergence is present on every block of this city. It's the piñata shop next to the hipster coffee shop next to a film set. It's the carefully engineered freeways bringing people from all walks of life to the beautifully unifying agony of LA traffic. It's an artist feeling so inspired and (as Terra remarked) so at home in a strange location that they are forced to add to its edifices. These different perspectives inspire each other to augment the character of this city. Although the feelings can be dark and the images gloomy, convergence of dreams grounds us, oddly enough, in reality.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why I hold graffiti higher than tagging lies in the invitation it sends out to the city. This is possibly extremely ignorant, but when I look at tags I hear a screaming voice: "Fear me. Run away. This is mine, all mine." When I see graffiti, however, I see Terra's angel, doing its best to accept all angelenos within its wide wingspan.
I believe there is a distinct and obvious line in the intentions of the creators of graffiti found on Echo Mountain and surrounding the LA River and those who have littered or tagged these same spaces. I think most of the class has voiced a similar opinion in the last two weeks. I believe Conor would agree, the actions of those who have chosen to graffiti would reflect a more creative intention, in contrast to taggers and litterers who have, whether intentionally or not, caused destruction on some scale. What I believe is such a unique consequential creation of graffiti is the possibility for the unspoken connection and conversation that it creates for all who have visited, or are soon to visit. A nonsynchronous collective creation. Many of us picked up on the sense of community and comfort graffiti is able to bring to us in urban environments- sensations we might not have expressed if all that surrounded us was seemingly untouched, gray concrete. The publically and physically interactive components graffiting offers, which Brennan was able to experience, is unique to the art form of graffiti. Without planning, Brennan was able to add something, reflecting her presence in that distinct moment, to a collective statement created by anyone that has, or will visit the same location.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry guys did it twice...
DeleteBrennan brings up the idea of the world being our (humans'?) commons. This is fascinating to me, because our treatment of the world may be the perfect example of the tragedy of the commons. We are destroying our planet in a way that is carefree and dramatic. Some authors believe that the only way to avoid a mass-human tragedy in as soon as the next 100 years involves a dramatic change in the way our economy functions. About 20 years ago, the UN agreed upon a 2˚C policy--that the most we would allow our average earth temperature to increase by would be 2˚C. Today, we near that mark, and despite the consensus that the UN came to, there is no suggestion that any high-emissions country is going to slow down. If we were to enact even some dramatic changes, they would have to come quickly. The International Energy Agency's chief economist Faith Birol has bluntly stated that "The door to reach two degrees is about to close. In 2017 it will be closed together." Even a two degree global temperature increase would result in major storms, tsunamis, and shocking weather that will "feel like the Armageddon" over the next 100 years. Those are inevitable. And so, in summation: Brennan's point about the greatest common property that everything possesses being in danger of becoming the ultimate tragic commons is much more apt, much more powerful, and much more frightening than it appears. How can we reverse this powerful tide? It will take more than just a little bit of water conservation...
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the principle of collective ownership and responsibility for which Mr. Donnell advocated can exist in tandem with the compulsion to leave a mark on a public environment. As Hunter suggested in class today, a graffiti artist (maybe not just a tagger) leaves a bit of themselves behind in their work. If that piece enhances the appeal of a location, it can offset the damage it did to the environment in its creation. As Townsend was describing, it changes the environment without detracting from it. When a graffiti artist claims a space like a grey cement wall, there is a pretty low bar for success. Such an edifice seems almost innately oppressive and disappointingly impersonal. In short, the otherwise dull underside of our bridge was a location where a successful amelioration through personal expression was almost guaranteed. And successful it was. Can street art be destructive? Sure. One wall was covered in small messages, all reading "anal sex." That hardly added to the experience. But nearby there was a demon on a wall, painted in bold black strokes. And, though I could not begin to describe it, its impact on me was tangible. It made me feel...something, more than I could say for an off-white wall. And I gained from the demon, or rather from the feeling it provoked, a sense of ownership over the underside of the bridge. I assumed not private ownership but the chunk of public ownership reserved for each citizen. Maybe art is the remedy for the "tragedy of the commons."
ReplyDeleteWhen assessing whether graffiti or tagging is right or wrong, I think you need context to properly do so. For example, comparing Echo Mountain to a man made bridge, one structure is cement and made to serve people while the mountain was not made by humans, so we have no ownership over the environment. Regarding Sean's point about destructive art, although I agree that the wall covered in small messages reading "anal sex" does not add much to the experience, how does that compare to a painting covered in messages reading "anal sex" in an art museum or on a pipe on Echo Mountain? We always need context to fully understand the validity of an action.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I appreciate graffiti more than I do tagging, I do believe there is significant value to tagging. In some cases tagging can just be from of "marking your territory", but often times tagging can be a form of communication. During the LA riots, tagging was used to communicate with other protesters and have a more significant value than a signature on a cement wall.
Firstly, I think there is a distinct difference between graffiti and tagging. Tagging is not a constructive practice, it is a practice of ill will. Graffiti is unfairly lumped into the same category by "the man" because they happen to use the same medium and sometimes artists are not asked to paint in a location. I said in class about how an artist does not always pick the canvas, but the canvas speaks to the artist. In this is the case, I think, most graffiti artists, fall under this category. Brennan brought up her graffiti. She added to the plethora of what was there. She asks whether she is "part of the problem". I say no, I was slightly jealous of her addition to the community mural. She did not tag she painted a very nice script B on the wall, not overlapping or obstructing the view of any other art. Brennan is now a part of that art. I think the art of the places is very constructive. The bare underside of a bridge is boring and conducive to a "1984" vibe, with the addition of graffiti these places are a sanctum for a community of people who represent a city or larger place.
ReplyDeleteMost people have seemed to realize that the "tragedy of the commons" is expressed in a much larger scale than just within communities or even just Los Angeles. I totally agree that this tragedy is inevitable and not really something that could ever be prevented or reversed. Ultimately, everyone is making decisions and acting a certain way based off of the benefits they would receive. While the world is full of selfish people, we all have partaken in something solely to better our own lives rather than others'.
ReplyDeleteAs for the whole contrariety of graffiti and it's influence of being positive or negative, I think we all understand that it's impossible for there only to be powerful and moving artworks displayed at all these places we visit. If anything, seeing a humongous detailed graffiti artpiece surrounded by scribbles and random tags would only strengthen the fact that that artist committed so much more time and heart to what they spraypainted as compared to the others who only wanted to "claim" their space. Nonetheless, everyone should be able to contribute to the aura of LA. Graffiti is seen and remembered every day, and it's an exciting feeling to think that we could all be part of a eye-opening experience (I.e the demon Sean enjoyed) by using the power of art!!! So yes, Brennan, I do think you have the authority to leave your mark!
I viewed the graffiti underneath the bridge almost as a project that different people came together to make. Art is something that is so individual, but everybody's work helped create a welcoming and open environment that prompted Brennan and Terra to leave marks of their own. If I can make an analogy to our dialogues, the fact that everybody was adding their own personal twist to the images on the wall felt like they were creating a completely new understanding of what was previously there. So from that, I got a sense of both private and communal ownership.
ReplyDeleteI used to view graffiti as a negative thing, like a marring of something that should be left alone, but what's weird is that I felt welcomed when I saw it underneath the bridge. The place felt open, alive, and important. It seemed like it belonged to all of us. While some people do tag places with the intention of harming others (and that I don't agree with), I believe the graffiti we saw the other day added not only a beauty to the bridge, but also a meaning and a history. I see nothing wrong with graffiti when the intentions are to express oneself artistically in a space with no clear ownership.
Reading this post I had lots of thoughts of my own and a few realizations that I hadn't considered before. Because I did not attend the lab this week I cannot comment on "what we saw" or anything along those lines, but I am still able to share my views about the situation and what I think about our stance on this controversy. I think that Art comes in many forms, and sometimes it can be confused with trash. Not everyone sees graffiti the way that we do, and not everyone believes that it should be accepted. The main thing I think that separates all the trash we have seen on labs and the art we have seen is that people are not trying to destroy the "commons" that is open to us, they are simply trying to share a part of themselves with it. The glass bottles and empty spray paint cans that were left are the trash that we should be picking up and not just leaving around anywhere, but the art that is left, that is made, by us contributes to the commons and has a positive affect on it rather than simply "trashing the place". This I think is very important for us to consider because we need to realize what is a good thing to contribute to these places and what is not. Once this happens we can see where our responsibility lies and have a somewhat better understanding of what simple things we need to do to keep the real "trash" out.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I am also disappointed that I was not able to go on this lab, because I feel that I could have truly gained a bigger insight to my thoughts and ideas. I have never been to the L.A. river before and this would have been a truly different experience.
I agree with Brenda. I used to see graffiti as a way of defying ones property for their own gain. But after seeing all of the different pieces of underneath the bridge, I felt I was walking into a museum. Each wall had its own sense of character. One wall that really stuck out to me was there was one piece that I believe was painted of a man covered in green paint with many eyes. It was amazing! All of these different types of graffiti showed the sense of community, that was underneath the bridge. It would be interesting to go see the Art District in downtown, where the entire street is covered in different types of art pieces. I wonder if we would get the same feeling from the Art district as we did from underneath the bridge?
ReplyDeleteBrennan suggests that leaving trash on the mountain, spray painting what wasn’t ours to spray paint, empty bottles left by the river, etc. would lead to a collapse of some sort. Then she proceeds to pose the question, " how does graffiti differ from the rest of what we have criticized?"
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that graffiti differs immensely from the examples given. All of the examples are representative of litter and objects that harm our environment. Plastic pollutes our landfills. Used spray cans left in the sun I'm sure excrete harmful chemicals in the air or something that is detrimental to the earth. But I don't really see how art on a wall can be harmful to our environment. The action of doing graffiti has no harmful effect but rather a component that attracts interest to it.
I want to touch on what I said in class about how I view graffiti. I don't think that it has the same effect as tagging, which is what Mr. Donnell was referring to when he stated that it has a territorial aspect to it. Graffiti is the act of artists giving a piece of themselves to a certain place or area. What is unique about graffiti is that it makes people like me and Brennan want to add and contribute. Now I know me and Brennan are good people, so if something naturally attracts us to want to add or participate, then how can it be add to a collapse?
As we discussed in class today, there is a line drawn between graffiti artist and tagger, between contribution and ownership, and between selflessness and selfishness. A graffiti artist paints not to make a mark, but to contribute. To beautify his surroundings in his eyes. A tagger's intentions, however, can be found on the selfish end of the spectrum. A tagger leaves his mark to be known. To be recognized. To be able to return to a physical point and have permanently engrained memories sparked by an artistic rendering. A tagger is less concerned with the environment's aesthetics, but rather intends to be noticed. To stand out. This is not negative, for a compilation of tags only further expresses the individuality found in this city. A tagger and a graffiti artist cannot be categorized mutually, however they are both respectively significant contributors to the uniqueness of Los Angeles.
ReplyDeleteI think that both tagging and graffiti are art. Maybe in different categories of art, but they both express something that the artist may have felt. Brennan described the journey that our group had to take through fences and off mini-cliffs, which means that they had to make that journey as well. Maybe what's being expressed is the collective revolt against a privatized structure. Maybe what this graffiti and tagging is expressing is the anger towards the giant grey walls that cover the once natural river. Or maybe it is the public coming together, and through the form of graffiti art returning this area back into its past form. A bunch of the other posts mentioned the beauty of graffiti art and how it impacted people in new ways. So yeah, maybe this tagging and graffiti is a sign of rebellion against the private structures that would attempt to transform this beautiful landscape into one of cement and rubble.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete