The zenith of both Art genre is within the nexus of the Postmodern Zeitgeist. In analysing the provenance formal-nature of 'Street Art' and 'Public Art', the approach in the study of Visual Culture is deemed as fundamental as its high point in the present of Society and Culture. The dynamic interplay between Artist/Artwork/Authority/Audience seems fascinating by entangled concepts of 'Power' and 'Conflict' of Philosophical Interest by Postmodernism.
Hegel in 'Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1820)', remarks in the Preface that, "Philosophy" (Concept) is "its own time" comprehended in thought. Moreover, suggesting that a concept (Phenomena/Process) attaining existence in any society is conditioned by its historical or cultural presences in reality. At the same time, emergence of Street and Public Art, is in the locus of attention at the conflict of 'Power' between Artist/Artwork/Authority/Audience in the refutable Postmodern Zeitgeist (Culture). In time, after the 1960's, or specifically after its predecessors glorious heyday of the American 'Abstract Expressionist' between 1950's- 1960's (Konneke, 1997).
Art Museum -TATE (2020), apparently remarks postmodernism in Art terms as, "Postmodernism can be seen as a reaction against the ideas and values of modernism, as well as a description of the period that followed modernism's dominance in cultural theory and practice in the early and middle decades of twentieth century. The term is associated with scepticism, irony and philosophical critiques of concepts of universal truths and objective reality". Among the refutable critiques celebrated by the postmodernist, Nietzsche, in his book 'The Gay Science (1882)', remarks that the purpose of being (life) is being itself, or simplified to the notion of 'Purpose of life is life itself', and looking for a meaning for this life outside of itself is folly (wasteful).
On another note, Nietzsche is demanding the 'oneself' to reflect/revise one's life by de-valuing the modern concepts of moral, ethics, virtue, and value. Somehow, to a concept of pleasure over purpose in life (Non-Objective Truth/Reality), as contradict to the modern notion of 'Transcendental Idealism' or 'Categorical Imperatives' by Kant, where purpose is pivotally over pleasure, in a sense of a Humane being. Apart from, what was portrayed 'Humane' (Real World) by the modernist, exist as 'Inhumane' (Apparent World) by the postmodernist as the collateral damage in society which resulted from the wars and exploitation of powers in the name of the Modernist Values/Principles. For the balance, revising and re-creating destroyed ruins, specifically in the context of the Art World was more certain, than the Utopian visions of Modernism, which predominantly enculturated the context of Artist/Artwork/Authority/Audience in the Established Art Scene.
In the same vein, the interplay between 'purpose and pleasure' lays beneath the Maxim of Modernism and Postmodernism in the History of Design, which disputably the former (Modernism) holds account of philosophical concepts such as "Less is more", and "Form follow Function", where 'Form' (Pleasure) is less/equal than 'Function' (Purpose) in Modernist Designs. As in opposed, the Designs in Postmodernism revises these maxim towards principles of "Less is Bore", and "Form over Function", where 'Form' (Pleasure) is on the upper-hand/prioritised upon 'Function' (Purpose). As corresponding on how Nietzsche ridiculed the very existence/purpose of God in 'The Gay Science (1882)', proliferating that 'God is Dead', demanding the obsolete of reality in the value/virtue of Modern Society.
On the high point of postmodernism, the established autonomy of High Culture which sugar coated the Modern Artist was challenged/opposed by the Popular Culture, as shallow as from the Streets and blocks of Brooklyn (Jean-Michel Basquiat). In making matters worse, the notion of Artist/Artwork/Authority/Audience was blown out of context/concept in postmodernism. Pop Artist such as Andy Warhol, deliberately establish products of mass/popular culture as subjects to his artworks 'Campbell's Soup 1 (1968)', 'Coca-Cola (1962)', 'Golden Marilyn Monroe (1962)', and more as opposed to the autonomous subjects of the mind/process of his Modern Abstract Expressionist predecessors Jackson Pollock, Willian De Kooning, Mark Rothko. Along with that, saw artist of the 'Neo-Expressionist' such as Basquiat, who deliberately established his diverse cultural heritage as the subject to his Graffiti (Street Art) and Artworks 'SAMO Graffiti (1980)', 'Untitles - Skull (1981)', 'Flexible (1982), and more which celebrates the vibrant culture of his experience of society and identity in interest/crisis as a black painter in USA.
Remarkably, as stated by Lydia Lee "Like a DJ, Basquiat adeptly reworked Neo-Expressionism's clichéd language of gesture, freedom, and angst and redirected Pop Art's strategy of appropriation to produce a body of work that at time celebrated 'black culture' and 'history' but also revealed its complexity and contradictions". More to the point postmodernism played a fundamental role in shaping the zenith of Street and Public Art. Better yet, Private Galleries which were autonomous in the condition of its settings and choices in Artist/Artwork/Audience, were liberated by the unconditioned Artist/Artwork/Audience of the Public Realm.
The conflict of interest between Artist/Artwork/Authority/Audience which arose within Postmodernism remains in the locus of attention directed to the conflict of 'Power'. The Art Scene were governed by constructing concepts of 'Strategies' (Function), and 'Tactics' (Use), as what Carteau conceptualised in his book 'The Practice of Everyday Life (1980)'. In remarks, Carteau explains 'Strategies' as the interest of the city (Authority/Artwork), and the 'Uses' as the interest of the citizen (Artist/Audience). Richard A. Lynch defines, Carteau's contemporary, Foucoult's concept on 'Force-Relation' as in the case of 'Theory of Power', remarking "whatever in one's social interactions that pushes, urges or compels one to do something", is an effect of difference, inequality, or unbalance that exist in other forms of relationships (Lynch, 2011). Foucoult establish the 'Power' and 'Force' as simultaneously complimenting one another. In a similar manner, this is observable in the conflict of a high culture Art Scene, exclusive to the conditions of its Artist/Artwork/Audience, as opposed to its successor of a mass/popular culture, an opened, unconditioned, and inclusive Art Scene of Artist/Artwork/Authority/Audience in the name of Street and Public Art.
Nevertheless, the notion 'Street Art' and 'Public Art', do constitute to a paradoxical path of discourse, dispute conflict and compliment between one another. In spite of everything, we can look on the course of Street and Public Art in the approach of Visual Culture examining the similarities and differences. In that case, we are going to look at the 'function' and 'use' between both Art genre in the context of Artist/Artwork/Authority/Audience. Correspondingly, both Art Genre do share a zenith in time of there formal emergence in Visual Art/Culture, which is 1960-1970 and beyond (Konneke, 1997)
Art Museum- TATE (2020), apparently remarks 'Street art is related to graffiti art in that it is created in public locations and usually unsanctioned , but it covers a wider range of media and is more connected with graphic design'. On this remark, the elements and attributes connected to Street Art is in the notion of a negative form of unauthorised (unsanctioned) Art, which is Illegal by definition of the Authority (System). As a result, the name of the Artist remains invisible or in the form of symbols, which by case do exist as individual Author (Artist) in a specific site/surface/space of the Artwork. In parallel with this, a single site/surface of the Street Art can take credit out of multiple Author (Artists). At the other end, what remains as a Marvel in its genre (Street Art), to be specific is the production process which are uncoordinated apart from the multiple Authors (Artist), but continues to propagate a collective message throughout the whole process of the Makers. For this instance, the whole phenomena (process) is more in 'Its Own Time' as what Hegel suggested, more than 200 years backwards. Over and above that, is the Phenomena of the Artwork itself happening in the present society/culture, which is deliberately transcend by means of its unconfined collective of Authors (Artists) within unconditional site/surface placement of the Artwork, apparently in our Public Realm by the name of 'Street Art'.
Better than that, the expressions/representation of ideas by the Artist is not subjected towards the confine laws of the system, in this instance the Authority, as differed to Public Art. On the bright side, this exclusiveness in the nature of Street Art, demands for a more radical, unconditioned, unconfined, unregulated sense of expression/representation of the Artists. On the plus side, more questions/objections on the formal system in context of the state, society, culture, virtue, value of the present 'Real World' as remarked by Nietzsche, which in definition of the Authority/System as is 'Unsanctioned (illegal)' is deliberately challenged in the message of the Artworks. On this account, the Artworks produced by its maker, is subjected to instance of time before being dismantle/removed entirely by the appointed Authorities. For that matter, Audience of 'Street Art' is bound by the constraint of temporal nature of the Artwork. Besides this, some artworks are brought to last in a whole new level of Information Society and Media. This is when the ugly thoughts of 'citizens' evolve to 'netizens' in a whole virtual space of Mass Communication Media.
From the remainder, the 'Functions' of the genre Street Art can be seen as a message from the maker (Artist/Artwork) towards the User (Authority/Audience), which in its fundamental concept is opposed to the genre 'Public Art'. In the opposite manner, 'Functions' of the genre 'Public Art' is from the maker (Authority/Sponsor/Artist/Artwork) towards the User (Audience), where most of the subject in Artwork is oriented towards Public User (performative use), rather than targeting the Authority/System. In addition to the existing, the so-called 'New-Genre Public Art', where the emphasis is less on the artistic product itself but 'On collaboration, and collective dimension of Social Experience' (Lacy: 1995, Bishop: 2006)
Art Museum- TATE (2020), apparently remarks 'Public Art refers to art that is in the public realm, regardless of whether it is situated on the public or private property or whether it has been purchased with public or private money'. On this remark, Public Artwork is not defined by its existence in setting and ownership, rather on its very existence in the Public Realm, unconditioned by Public or Private. But in spite of that, there is one condition that the Public Realm is confined and under conditioned, which is the regulating law of the system, which acknowledges the Authority to enforce. As a result, the Author (Artist) is confined by within the whole process of produce, exhibit, and dismantle of the Artwork. On the upper-hand, does have a right of ownership protected by the law of the Authority, as opposed to that of Street Art in definitions of the Authority/System. On top of everything, when an Artwork is confined by such law-system, the Artist Expression/Representation of Ideas are limited to the permission of the Authority. At the other end of the scale, the ownership of the Artwork is exclusive towards the rights given/practice by the Artist, where in apparent cases such as the copyright infringement of the 'Cloud Gate (2006)' - Anish Kapoor sculpture by the NRA, at the Millennium Park, Chicago, USA. In result, the Artist reached an out-of-court settlement with the National Rifle Association (NRA) to end the copyright infringement lawsuit he brought in 2017 against the unauthorised inclusion of his Artwork 'Cloud Gate (2006) in an anti-gun control TV ad.
In the favour of the protected ownership and author of Public Art attained by the Artist. However the Artwork itself is not limited/conditioned to only certain parts of the city site/surface/space, as experience by the Street Artist. Almost everything that is split out of its context can be placed and remarked as 'Public Art', even the act of planting trees and making happenings are apart of the whole concept of Public Art in 'Public Realm'. Despite everything, the Audience themselve get to practice their token of autonomy, in expressing the Artwork, which were once practiced exclusively by the modernist, in particular the Abstract Expressionist with their strokes and splatters of personalise experience/process. Equivalently, the Authority gains control of system in favour of the 'Function' and 'Use' of Public Art, disputably in a 'Win Win' fashion between the Authority and Artist, as what the British Political Philosopher Thomas Hobbes, remarked 'People are (free) so long they are not literally placed in chains' (Taylor, 2011). Correspondingly the term 'Chain' in this postmodernism culture is the label of 'Illegalness' by the Authority/System.
At the bottom line, the demarcation of 'Street Art' and 'Public Art' is in the notion of the legalness or illegalness defined by the Authority/System. Apparently, by some degree of understanding 'Street Art' is within the genre of 'Public Art' in the sense of its legal permit granted by the Authority. By way of contrast when the 'Street Art' goes beyond/crosses the confined permit, the notion of 'Street Art' is portrayed by its own unique Art Genre, independence upon permission and representation/expression of Ideas.
Corgito, Ergo Sum
Thank You
MUSADDIQ MOHAMAD KHALIL
Department of Liberal Studies
UiTM Alor Gajah
PACAQ- UITM RIG 2020
References:
Bishop, C. (ed.) (2006) Partcipation, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Konneke, A. (1997) 'Wege aus der Erstarrung. Entwicklung und Perspektiven der Kunstim offentlichen Bau als Programm,' in Kulturamt der Stadt Jena (ed.) Kunst-Raum-Perspektiven. Ansichten zur Kunst in offentlichen Raumen, Jena: Kulturamt.
Lynch, R. A. (2011) Foucoult's theory of power. In Taylor, D. (red.) Micheal Foucoult: Key Concepts (pp. 13-26). Acumen Publishing Ltd., ISBN 978-1-84465-234-1
Lacy, S. (ed.) (1995), Mappingthe Terrain: New Genre Public Art. Seattle: Bay Press.
Sirmans, Franklin. (2005) In the Cipher: Basquiat and Hip Hop Culture from the book Basquiat. Mayer, Marc (ed.). Marrell Publishers in association with the Brooklyn Museum, ISBN 1-85894-287
Taylor , C. (2011) Biopower. In Taylor, D. (red.) Michel Foucoult Concepts (pp. 41-54). Acumen Publishing Ltd., ISBN 978-1-844465-234-1
Comments
Post a Comment