Street Art

At university today we had a discussion about street art and thought about whether we did actually view it as art or as a crime. Every month we are getting together and in pairs we will bring forward a topic that we feel passionate about or perhaps effected by in the industry.

So is Street art or 'graffiti' a crime? I really believe it is to do with where it is and why it is there. Indeed we would say that painting on the side of someone's house would be 'wrong' and perhaps it should be displayed somewhere more 'arty' like the northern quarter in Manchester for example, but surely the controversy is what this art form thrives upon? I saw a perfect example of this in Berlin, there were some very old buildings that had been taken over by artists and completely decorated inside and out. They were out in the public eye for everyone to view, and seeing the designs all contained within one place was rather spectacular. I made me see 'graffiti' in a way I never had before, as something rather beautiful.

'Tags' are seen to be more of a spontaneous form of street art, they are quick and often simplistic. They also appear in more random spots. Why do we not give these expressive people an area they can work on? perhaps give them an old run down building that nobody can find any use for and let them create there own gallery out of it.

If we take a look at Edgar Muller, we are forced to go and view the work while it exists because it is done and chalk and will naturally be washed away by the rain. People will make more of a point to look at the image in person (rather than works of Banksy perhaps, whos work can be seen everywhere nowadays). This creates this idea of a public gallery, encouraging people to go out and find the actual image itself.

Muller's street illustrations are temporary and this also means that they will not directly effect people or offend, making them much less controversial. A good thing or a bad thing for street artists; I do not know?