Joined: Mar. 2008
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 11 2011,11:50)|
|Quote (Louis @ Mar. 11 2011,11:32)|
|"Graffiti is done neither for financial reward or personal acclaim, therefore is the purest form of art. Discuss!"|
Louis (Not at all derailing his own thread)
No. Logical fallacy dude. False dichotomy. Other forms of art can be done for neither financial reward or personal acclaim.
Further graffiti is often done to mark gang territory and is therefore a form of communication rather than pure art (which judging by some of the shows I've been too involves flinging paint onto a canvas from more than 10 meters away or giant penises).
Considering all the money my wife is putting into her Master of Fine Arts in studio art degree... her art process is negative in terms of reward.
Indeed - back in Chicago we (ok, I and those I knew) used graffiti to mean gang signs mostly, and art that was put up without any permission from the owner. Further, a lot of graffiti is put up for personal acclaim - look at this "banksey" (or whatever his name is) - people at large may not know who he is (or care, to be honest), but if anybody thinks he isn't doing it for the acclaim...well, I doubt it doesn't figure into it. So, the premise may not even be true in that way. Unless someone does it in the dark, there's always someone who knows, and even if it is done in secret, the artist usually lives in the area and can appreciate (in secret) the acclaim of the others in the neighborhood, if it is good.
Just my thoughts.
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G