Macari is an artist with a difference, quoted from the baltic "Macari’s direct physical response to the space has resulted in a new series of site-responsive drawings, traceable throughout the building. This presentation of Ant Macari’s work is expansive and involving, presenting new visual challenges to us in and around the gallery that reaches beyond the conventional art exhibition."He uses as you can see from the photo all the space he has available to him in the room he is situated in to produce his art. He leaves codes and hints in his work and forms paths to illusions hidden secrets. He uses a diverse array of techniques from tonal to line shading and isometric drawings, he involves the viewers in a fantastic way when his art is displayed. I see it as marketing art in a different sense taking in and using everything he can around him. His art could be classed as grafitti if seen on streets etc but is grafitti classed as art? However becuase it is setup in exhibitions it is known as contemporary art . Viewers are often handed guides asking them if they can find the puzzles hidden within the art of lines and crazy drwaings. It reminds me of alice in wonderland sorts of themes or pans labrynth.
10 comments:
What are you saying? This work clearly is not graffiti is it? I see no streets or any evidence that this artist works in that context. And yes, it is all a matter of context. Lazy associations such as these are indicative of a mind unwilling to engage with its eyes or indeed art history. Allow me to illuminate the primary factor which differentiates 'graffiti' from conceptual art:
'Grafitti' is a self indulgent/reflective, egotistical, macho, low-brow ACT of self promotion which exists outside of and largely, willfully ignorant to the context of art history.
Contemporary conceptual art demonstrates a critical awareness to the history of art and culture at large. 'Grafitti' does not.
I would say Macari's work shares it's concerns with the Quatrocento fresco artist Giotto and the culture of manuscripts than it does with so called 'Grafitti.'
However, these definitions are by no means air-tight. Take for example the stream of artists entering the academy of the art world with a background in 'Grafitti', what is to be said of them? Well the trouble is: this reflects the fickle trends in the art market. Let's face it, the type of people who buy 'Grafitti art' from galleries are the same people who use words like 'edgy' and do not have a cultural agenda, but are buying solely for (mid life crisis) status.
In fact 'Grafitti' in galleries lost all of its value when it became itself an academy. Predicable; formulaic and tedious. An impotent gesture when dislocated from its original context with no strong reasoning.
For me there is no debate. 'Grafitti' is not contemporary art. It is simply 'Grafitti' with its own value systems and codified language, and I believe it has no desire to be art (in the context of art history). The dissenting qualities of 'Grafitti' should be preserved by leaving it on the streets.
People in this country need to wake up. This debate was over 6 years ago when Aaron Rose closed Alleged gallery. America is laughing at you - imagine that.
Engage brain prior to keypad please.
Thanks for your opinion. Everyone is entitled to there own views on art and what they would themsleves personally class as art, some people class graffitti as art some dont it is surely up to the viewer? Art is about freedom and how it makes you feel when you see it, if it creates an impact on yourself and you admire it then to you thats art.
Free your mind prior to judgement please.
Taste is tyranny. See Duchamp. I’m being objective when I say that a museum is no context for graffiti. It is a FACT that anything remotely guerrilla runs the risk of being an impotent gesture when presented in a gallery context. This is certainly TRUE of graffiti as its practitioners seldom demonstrate an awareness of (or engage, or address) the mechanisms of the museum. In order to continue our discussion let us identify what we each think graffiti is...
What do you mean when you say graffiti? Is it the same as street art? How does it differ from design or graphic communication?
(opinions like the one you demonstrated in the comments made prior to this one only function to perpetuate misinformation surrounding this issue. I would like to think there can be a resolution, if not for all; then certainly, in most (so called) graffiti artists roles in the art world: As they don’t seem to be contributing much in the way of substance to it).
Thanks.
My Dad had an impact on me and I admire him. Is he art?
well that all depends how pretty he is doesnt it!
art is what you make of it, shut up moaning!
I agree that graffiti if in the form of vandalism where by 'Graffiti and vandalism are illegal, anti-social activities that create negative impressions of an area and can contribute to people's fear of crime.' are bad and obviously I wouldn't class it as art personally. However that made me think what about if the graffiti itself relating to that quote was Michelangelo or Batisa Franco ( see the bottom of my blog for example ) who had done it, the graffiti would look fantastic and thus be admired and thus art? So whats to say if some 14 year old football hooligan had done it rather than a great Italian artist, stenciling his football teams badge on a wall I know I wouldn't class it as art, I would class it as vandalism and illegal. But I bet my younger 12 year old brother would admire it if was a badge of Sunderland football club, so then to him does that mean he is seeing it as art?
When I was referring to Ant Macari I said his work reminded my of graffiti, the reason being was because of the stenciled type and the fact that he uses walls rather than canvas to display a message or symbol, just like how graffiti often uses walls to promote a symbol or object.
I understand that because this is in the Baltic gallery it is not classed as Graffiti but what about if the exact same images, as on my blog, were on a wall next to your local off license. Would you then say it was Graffiti and not art?
In relation to comparing it with graphic communication design I believe Graffiti is a form of communication design as I cannot find a definitive definition of 'Graphic communication design' that would suggest otherwise.
I don't think its fair to say "Let's face it, the type of people who buy 'Graffiti art' from galleries are the same people who use words like 'edgy' and do not have a cultural agenda, but are buying solely for (mid life crisis) status."
I use the word edgy but I don't buy Graffiti art, but do class it as art I use it because of the rough area I grew up in it was our "lingo" and i'm certainly not going through a mid-life crisis. Ive also just returned from studying Graphic Communication design in Australia for the past year having explored it also in Indonesia and Asia so I would like to think that I have a cultural agenda. Obviously I am a simple amateur at cultural diversity in art and graphics compared to many, but what I did notice to back up my point about Graffiti being a type of communication design is that in places like Indonesia more specifically Kuta in Bali they use only walls to advertise and promote events by stenciling images and text because they cannot afford paper flyer's. It works. Graffiti is there form of Graphic Communication Design.
However I am still a young learning amateur and my opinion is only one, so I will ask my other student colleagues to review these comments and give there own views.
I really like this artist, I think that being able to wonder into a building and have his artwork surround you is a fabulous idea. I think its far better to be able to immerse yourself within an artists work than to stare at a small enclosed canvas a couple of meters away form you. Having the codes, hints and secrets hidden within the artwork adds a whole new layer to his work, I think that this is a brilliant concept as takes the audience in and they become far more involved and excited about the work, which is never a bad thing.
I think I have to agree with Adam in that, there are elements of his artist's work that reflect those of graffiti. You cannot argue that the use of stencil is often associated with graffiti, and has been adapted for producing artwork in many forms, try looking at a photo realist artist named Jamie George. He too has stated how he has been influenced by seeing graffiti and how he has ended up using stencils to produce his work.
I think it is slightly blase to state that graffiti doesn't demonstrate a critical awareness to the history of art and culture at large as some graffiti is a mark against politics and society- which is what some artists have been trying to do for centuries.
Getting back to Macari, I think his work is fantastic, I love the illustrative qualities to his work and the visual illusions some of his work entails. Thanks for posting about him because I am now a huge fan!
I don't know where this idea of stencils in Ant Macari's work has come from - It's all drawn free hand.
Adam said - "I understand that because this is in the Baltic gallery it is not classed as Graffiti but what about if the exact same images, as on my blog, were on a wall next to your local off license. Would you then say it was Graffiti and not art?"
The 'exact same images' are not on a exterior wall though are they? This work is site specific. The context is paramount, just because a drawing is on a wall doesn't make it graff.
My point is that this 'what if' approach is unhelpful in critical thinking on art. It is frankly absurd and inane. We must critique what the artist has given us to look at and go from there; not talking about what is not there and thinking 'well if it were somewhere else it would be different.' I'm sick of wasting my time discussing this issue. It is quite simple: Macari's work is in no way shape or form presenting itself in the same sphere as graffiti. Therefor not graffiti. These drawings are wall drawings.
A wall drawing does not graffiti constitue.
Post a Comment