What about Graffiti artist who make the transition into commercial art though? There's artist now who brought themselves up using the cities as their canvas, but graduate to studios, doing their art in a more contemporary form. I notice it a fair deal nowadays, that graf artists start off as many do, covering a city with their imagery to the point of recognition. However there's now a graduation taking place with graf artists getting into studios, selling themselves commercially, as a brand you could say. They spend their time putting the same imagery onto canvases and CD covers and commercial illustration and design. It's spreading into a pop culture demographic where once it was simply an element of the urban underground. Graffiti's style is marketable, but is it "selling out" so to speak, to present graffiti in such a way? To become a branded name that hangs in a gallery rather than a fragile and impermanent image on a concrete wall?
As for Graffiti as vandalism, it's a thin line I'd say. Graffiti's roots are in painting where you're not suppose to. If it has purpose, then it's arguable to say that it's social commentary or whatever as much as it's vandalism. It's a more difficult world of art to gauge because you have to see the good the bad and the ugly of what's out there. As is with most art there's more bad than good and thus it becomes majority rules for a lot of people. There's no curator when it comes to graffiti, and so we're stuck with everything and left to be the judge of it all.
Analog's underwear are digital. right now they're set to inverse 1 (I think that means they're on my head).
Last edited by analogZero; 05-17-2009 at 05:19 AM..