While art has pervaded many, if not all, aspects of the very diverse society of New York City, it has always been a source of controversy. By virtue of being a form of self expression, art is subjective. For this reason, I believe it is very difficult to clearly define what it is, and entirely impossible to ascertain what it is not. New York, which is arguably one of the cultural capitals of the world, boasts an incredibly diverse population and with even more diverse ways of thinking. This inevitably cultivates a wide range of culture and paradigms of behavior, and by extent, the expression of said culture. While I believe that due to its very nature, art is not a concept that should be subject to definition or the confines of a single person’s understanding of it, the following photographs are a record of my attempts to narrow the broad scope of the visual stimuli of New York City and capture some things that I can appreciate for their artistic value…and some that I can’t.
Graffiti on underpass
This vibrant graffiti colors what would have otherwise been a bleak underpass in a secluded part of Staten Island, often referred to as the “forgotten borough.” Graffiti, a staple of any urban area, has been a controversial form of art for as long as it has been around. While in some places it is viewed as a way of improving the appearance of otherwise bland cityscapes and bringing out the culture of a given area in a visual way, graffiti artists have also been subject to criminal prosecution in others. For example, in Berlin, it is encouraged and considered a huge part of the city’s history and aesthetic. However, in NYC, countless youths have been arrested for simply having been found to have spray paint in their possession. As with all things, I believe context is imperative to determining which end of the spectrum this falls on. In this case, the graffiti brought color and individualism to a place that relatively few people will ever see, making it a hidden gem. It is the mark of the individuals that have found their way there and clearly mirrors the experience of suburban youth. I consider this to be art, despite the fact that it will likely never be in a museum behind glass.
They Hate Us We Hate Them
This too, is an example of graffiti on Staten Island. However, I am less certain that it is art. This message, which reads “THEY HATE US WE HATE THEM”, was scrawled across the street from another line written in a similar style, reading “THE WAR ON TERROR? WAR IS TERROR.” I find these messages to be thought provoking and important, most likely referring the US’ approach to terror attacks. This highly controversial topic is shrouded in a mist of uncertainty and secrecy and has played a massive role in the lives of all Americans. “The War on Terror” has been a smokescreen for the attack on the right to privacy that is guaranteed to all US citizens by the Constitution, beginning with the Patriot Act which was put into effect shortly following the events of 9/11. This message is very important to consider and expressed in a bold visual way, and for this reason I believe it may also be a form of art. This opinion is subject to being challenged as the graffiti is primarily political in nature, as opposed to visually compelling.
Flowers in trash
This photograph of a bouquet of flowers lying in a trashcan tells a story of unrequited feelings, an experience relatable to most, if not all, people. However, I don’t believe that this composition of objects occurred with intent and I especially don’t believe that it was noticed by many people. While it is symbolic of what was likely a meaningful interaction between two individuals, its scope does reach far beyond that. Because it wasn’t created with artistic intent or viewed/interpreted by an audience, I would not consider this to be art (in its organic form). The photograph itself, on the other hand, could potentially be placed in a context where it would hold more meaning.
In final analysis, I believe art can be many different things and is not easily defined. At its core, I do believe art should be evocative, thought provoking, and visually compelling (even if not always beautiful).
Veronica Funk
I completely agree with you on the idea that art is very difficult to define and subjective to the viewer and context it is places in. As you mentioned, art is definitely a source of controversy and you did a great job capturing that controversy in the first two photos. My favorite line from this blog came when you stated, “I consider this to be art, despite the fact that it will likely never be in a museum behind glass,” because it shows readers that true artwork goes past the 4 walls of a museum. However, you also stated that the second photo may not be considered art because the graffiti is primarily political in nature, as opposed to visually compelling. I disagree with this because I think this photo is primarily art for that reason alone; it invokes a strong reaction as most controversial political statements/actions do. Amazing post, huge fan of your photography/writing skills!
I though that you did a great job with the first picture. You brought in external factors such as the area in which the graffiti was in order to define what art is. My favorite line was “It is the mark of the individuals that have found their way there and clearly mirrors the experience of suburban youth. ” because it shows how impactful art could be in multiple peoples lives. Not only might have this been a mark or symbol of what the persons stand for but it also tells a story of the culture that the person lives in. Furthermore, I 100% agree that art doesn’t have to be beautiful just because of society, today, defines many norms in that way. Great job and I really enjoyed this piece of artwork!!!!
I loved how you relate art to holding a message for the viewer. I totally agree with you in this regard. To me, art must have a purpose to evoke thought and understanding from the viewer. Even if the viewer is perplexed on how to interpret the art, it still invokes questioning and thought.