Robert Layton asserts that, while there is no “universal application,” “there are two approaches to the definition of art which are applicable across cultural boundaries…” (Layton, 5). After talking last week we decided that trying to define art was futile, and yet it seems that Layton is onto something. He says “one deals in terms of aesthetics, the other treats art as communication distinguished by a particularly apt use of images” (Layton, 5). In other words, we study the anthropology of art so that we can begin to understand art in a culturally relative context— that is, in relation to other forms of traditional expression within said culture. Layton cries out “What right do we have to assume that our criteria of harmony, rhythm, and proportion are those of other people?” (Layton, 13). WE CANNOT! In order to understand art, we need to understand the culture’s traditions, the artist’s experience of life within their culture, and perhaps even the culture of the audience they’re addressing. The beauty that we perceive may or may not be what the artist intended so the only way to understand the reality of the artist is to listen to his or her voice.
It was incredible to watch the clip about Faith47 and also the movie about graffiti in L.A. Graffiti is such an interesting art form since it’s sort of an anti-aesthetic. (It’s even been labeled “art crime,” a term used by the general public in a negative way but embraced by graffiti artists themselves!) One expert, Jeff Ferrell, writes in his book Crimes of Style:
"Graffiti writing breaks the hegemonic hold of corporate/governmental style over the urban environment and the situations of daily life. As a form of aesthetic sabotage, it interrupts the pleasant, efficient uniformity of "planned" urban space and predictable urban living. For the writers, graffiti disrupts the lived experience of mass culture, the passivity of mediated consumption." (The cool website where I found this: http://www.graffiti.org/faq/werwath/werwath.html .)
Aesthetic sabotage, hm…paradoxically, this is what the anthropologist must grasp in order to understand the aesthetic of graffiti art. It’s like using art against itself. (Nietzsche would love this!) It takes the traditional Western idea of form (harmony, beauty, balance, etc) and turns it on its head by exposing the artist’s reality. Too many people don’t respect the medium (to the point of calling it vandalism), and obviously they don’t appreciate the art form…probably because they don’t understand the culture from which it comes. But this is the entire point of anthropology: to understand another reality. Graffiti comes out of hip-hop. It comes from the streets, from struggle and hardship, from oppressed souls, from opinionated men and women who want to be heard above the deafening roar of the masses. To understand this reality, the anthropologist has to get out of his plush velvet armchair, open his eyes to the world, and his heart to human struggle.
(Check out these realities....This website is incredible!) http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/09/14/tribute-to-graffiti-50-beautiful-graffiti-artworks/
 |
| OMEN |
 |
| Josepalencia |
 |
| Perhaps an ancient form of graffiti? (http://sweetsweetlife.typepad.com/sweet_sweet_life/2010/02/im-sure-that-cave-paintings-are-not-on-your-list-of-fascinating-subjectsnor-were-they-on-mine-but-olivia-had-to-do-a-unit.html) |
I saw these canvas graffiti paintings at Outside Lands a few weeks ago. They weren't made to reflect the artist's culture in particular (although I'm sure this was an influence), but rather to reflect the culture of the festival inspired by the music. Kind of a neat sensory experience for a peek into festival sub-culture. It wasn't solely the graffiti artist's voice that was heard, but rather the voices of the musicians expressed through the painter's interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment