When does unofficial street art become accepted by the public? Sixty Inches from Center has an interesting blog post, “Street Art Approval” analyzing the work of Mental 312, and how his unofficial murals have managed to remain. It’s a very interesting blog post.
I left a comment on it about how some street art can be destructive. I’d like to republish my thoughts here. (Note, I edited my comments a little bit to make my points more clear if you’d like to read my original comment check out the comments section on the blog post on Six Inches from Center)
There’s something good to be said about artwork that fits in with the environment. (A subtle poke at artwork that is more about peeing on turf than about fitting in). I applaud artwork that is welcomed by the general public. I know, I know. What you may be thinking is, “what about artwork that challenges us?” Yes, there is that street artwork that does exist. And it does get painted over, because people don’t want to be challenged.
But I’d like to challenge the street art community and ask how often does our artwork really challenge the public? Or is it more about simply “expressing myself?” Do your expressions really impact the public? What are your motivations? Are you just wanting to get your work seen? Are you doing it so you get the high out of taking ownership of a certain location?
I know those feelings. I like being able to see my work sitting somewhere.
I want to share my thoughts here not as someone standing higher up criticizing, but as someone who is in the trenches with you. Someone who really wants the public to get something bright out of their day. I want us street artists to really touch people. When I leave my artwork around, I think about how it will be received. I don’t want to just fulfill my desires as an artist to express myself. But I want to consider my audience and their reception.
And I also don’t like destroying someone’s property.
I hope my work is uplifting and non-destructive. I know most of my fellow street artists don’t agree on the non-destructive part, but whatevs. That’s just my own perspective. But I find it kinda sad when people complain about their destructive work being painted over. (it’s both sad to have their work painted over, but it’s also sad that we have this expectation of ownership of certain places when we really don’t. Which is another interesting topic is the ownership of public spaces, because we do in a way own public spaces, but in a community fashion. So if the community deems the work not fitting, it gets painted over.)
So to not destroy someone’s property, I simply let my art be removed. Easily removed. In fact, I embrace that, because it means someone likes it enough to actually take it. If they take it home or give it to someone else, then hopefully that work will have even more impact.
Back to Mental 312’s murals. Despite my personal viewpoints on street art destroying property, I only have those views in terms of MY OWN work. I still greatly appreciate others’ good street art, even when it’s painted on walls. Granted, I’d like street art to be more of a gift to the community, rather than a promo for the artist. I like Mental 312’s work, because it does brighten up the community.
There is something very culturally interesting about his/her work and how it strikes a fine balance of acceptance and outlawness. There is one of his works in my neighborhood in Lincoln Square (at Lawrence and Hoyne). I appreciate his work. One of these days I want to do a more full analysis of why his work succeeds. If anyone has any thoughts on Mental 312’s work, please leave your ideas in the comments on this blog post.
If you disagree with anything I said, please also let me know.
I’m totally open to dialogue on this issue. I know I take a stance that is not really accepted in the street art community.