The Arts in NYC Fall 2012

I paid a visit to the Guggenheim earlier this week on the heels of our Defiant Art discussion. Though I spent my time  observing abstract expressionism by Picasso, Matisse, and other artists of the time, I noticed distinct parallels between Graffiti and the traditional abstract works of the incumbent greats. Though the style itself cannot be compared aesthetically (I personally enjoy Graffiti more being a disenfranchised vagrant and listless youth) I do appreciate the goal of both forms of art. They both seek to reform how attitudes and opinions are expressed through art, and both seek to address issues often ignored by the traditions of the time. For example, Picasso’s most famous piece, “Guernica”, illustrated the travesties of the German bombing of Guernica. Much like modern Graffiti artists, like Banksy (whose art I’ve seen in London), they seek to express contemporary conflicts and issues through different media that operate against the grain.

Picasso’s “Fourteenth of July”, representing the celebration of Bastille Day in France immediately struck me as art against the grain. It presents a generally positive holiday in French history with anxious brush strokes, a flustered clash of red and blue beside nondescript faces in a crowd. This appears in the same vibrant way as graffiti sprawled on a subway car or an empty wall beside an alley. The loud and lurid colors of many tags, pieces, and full length murals draw the eye of the viewer to the message behind the art in addition to aesthetic appeal. Oddly enough, I find the expression of apathy and disenfranchised listlessness present in Graffiti more appealing and relatable than traditional abstract expressionism, even with a heightened understanding for its meaning.

Despite the parallels I can draw between the two genres, I can safely say that there are significantly less genuine psychopaths who tag and spray paint as opposed to the Picassos and Van Goghs of the world. Crazy artists.

-Stephen Elliott