One of the coolest things about the Chelsea Galleries is that the art is everywhere. For example, this piece is visible from the High Line:
There are two things I love about this artwork. First, it is not entirely clear what it is “supposed” to be. Is it a blue check mark, a yellow Teletubby and Pac-man? Does it spell the word “LOVE”? Is it a group of colorful, misshapen balloons? Lots of interpretations pop up in my mind when I see it.
The second thing I enjoy is the location and context of this sculpture. Directly to its right is a dirty building with graffiti on it. This raises a question we have discussed in class: What qualifies something as art? Just like graffiti, the sculpture uses bright colors, forms rounded shapes, and is in a public place. They don’t seem that different! But they are. When I said “this piece” in my opening sentence, it was immediately clear that I meant the sculpture and not the graffiti.
We perceive graffiti as ugly. Painting over that wall would be considered “beautification” of the neighborhood, and I’m not sure I disagree. The sculpture has an artistic element that distinguishes it from the graffiti, but it is hard to define exactly what that element is. For some reason, the sculpture is good art, and the graffiti is bad art. Even without knowing why that is, it is fun to appreciate the contrast between the pieces.
Tamar Lichter
I really like that you chose to discuss outside of the galleries, and that you went even further to discuss what is often not considered art. Not only is the contrast between public and private art worth discussing, but the ambiguity between “good” art and “bad” art is one which seems to pique all of our interests.
I also like that you discussed not only your perception of the two pieces, but that of the public in general and how they may differ. Interestingly, since Chelsea is renowned for it’s contribution to the arts, it seems as if graffiti– something which is often not considered art– may be elevated to that level thanks to its context.