The first photo I took was of the buildings on 17 Lexington Avenue. I consider this photo to be qualified to be called art. Why? To me art tells a story. When you look at the picture, it gives an impression to someone. You can tell it was raining that day by the wet streets and gloomy sky. You can also tell it’s an urban area due to the extremely large buildings. You can appreciate the architecture of the buildings, that let alone is art. In addition, there’s construction cones and barriers around the sidewalks as well, this shows us that there is something new to look forward to. You can see the “Baruch College,” banner hung up on one of the buildings. You can infer that the streets are filled with college students roaming around. As well as cars are trying to get through safely in the rain in the crowded city. I got to learn about a whole community lifestyle through merely one picture.
I chose street graffiti as something I would not necessarily think of as art but could be persuaded otherwise. We had a similar discussion in class about whether destruction is considered art or not. For example, when people destroy things in history, and it’s later placed in museums as artifacts. I understand that this picture shows someone destroying someone else’s property. Although art is a form of creativity, which allows people to send their message. Sometimes people use graffiti as protest art. When a certain group of people can’t be heard, they use their art to send a message to people. Now this might just be a bunch of scribbles that some hoodlums did in the middle of the night, some gang-related activity, or a protest against whatever is being build on the street. I personally don’t really know what the scribbles are saying. Whether it be vandalism or art? It’s conveying a message to the observer.
The next picture I took is something I would not consider to be art. When I look at the photo, I don’t get anything out of it as I did for my first photo. It’s a brown paper bag from “Shake Shack,” that people started stepping all over. It’s more garbage on the floor than art. I can’t picture something like this, framed, and placed in an art museum. I understand there’s forms of accidental art. For example, when people are walking on the snow and they’re leaving trails of footsteps all over. Although that can tell a story such as where someone is going, but when I look at this photo I don’t see anything other than liter.
Personally, I think what considers to be art is when one is sending a message or showing a story such as my first and third picture of the city street and the graffiti. I don’t think art is only an intricate or elaborate painting such as the Mona Lisa. Art surrounds our daily lives, it can be found just walking to school. My definition of art can be different than someone else’s. I consider art to be when someone has a feeling about something, someone, an idea, etc., and they use a creative outlet to portray it, in order to find someone else to appreciate it or feel the same way.
I completely agree with your definition of art being a story that is told. When looking at your first picture, I was definitely able to see a whole storyline unfolding. The capability of the first picture having such different effects on each person that views it, also shows what a powerful piece of art this is. As for the second picture, I can understand why it was one of those iffy pictures. In my eyes, that is vandalism of property. I do not see any sort of art behind the vandalized nor do I grasp some sort of message that is trying to be shown. I can understand why some people might view it as art because like you said, this can be interpreted as some sort of protest. All in all, the second picture is very subjective and has a different meaning to each person that views this.
Sarine,
I very much agree with you regarding the first picture being art, it is a detailed photo that conveys a certain mood or theme to the observer, especially taking into account the inclement weather. However, I must disagree with your claim that the graffiti from the second photo conveys a message to the observer. While I agree that graffiti can be visually appealing I believe this particular example is just vandalism, partially because it wasn’t painted on a canvas that is generally used for graffiti, and because the actual “art” isn’t very legible nor recognizable. Though I agree that art can be used as a medium for protest, I don’t believe that the second photo can be considered protest art, since it doesn’t convey any particular message.
Hi Sarine. I know that graffiti is art, but that last photo simply is not art to me. I do not have any questions. It does not invoke anything in me. I think that it may just be a word or name. I think that graffiti like this is simply vandalism and that vandalism is symbolism. I spoke about this in my post, but I believe that art and symbolism are two distinctly different things. I agree with you about the second photo. It is not art. There is no story or emotion. It is not abstract or intentional. It is simply garbage.
x Marie Traore x