The Connections between Art and Communication - Essay Example

Art and Communication Before one can begin to investigate the connections between art and communication, it is helpful to have a general understanding of how the term ‘art’ should be defined within the context of the conversation. For purposes of this discussion, art will be considered as a means of expression where expression is defined as “the putting forth of purpose, feeling, or thought into a sensuous medium, where they can be experienced again by the one who expresses himself and communicated to others” (Parker, 2003). It is important to highlight the word sensuous because it is here that the definition differs from a simple, nearly involuntary expression of shock or anger and the almost automatic directives of everyday communication. In order to be considered art, the form of expression must be capable of inciting an emotional response in some form of premeditated presentation. While the art itself may be to a large extent spontaneous, the display of it as such would qualify for the required element of premeditation while the encouragement to others of stopping and reflecting upon the emotions this display evokes elicits the sensuous response. Although art can be appreciated for its aesthetic values alone, it can also be put to work for a variety of other reasons, such as advocating a particular political or ideological concept. This is most often accomplished through mass media which is influenced by and influences political and corporate agendas. However, in this more fragmented society, in which socially isolated individuals become more susceptible to exterior manipulation, propaganda produced within the mass media has a repressing effect upon the mass population. This, in turn, has a repressing effect upon the art that is being produced as only those art forms that support the dominant conventions gain notice. This single viewpoint shared across all mediums is referred to as hegemony. However, there is another art form that subverts these restrictions. Graffiti, largely identified as an illegal art, has been used by artists as a means of expressing resistance to this hegemonic shift in countries around the world. The definition of graffiti changes depending upon who is providing the definition. Although often referred to as art, its artistic merits are frequently ignored or deemed unimportant, as is exemplified in the definition provided by the Dublin City Council (“What is Graffiti?”, 2007) in which only one of the five listed characteristics even mentions its artistic qualities: “Graffiti is illegal and an anti-social activity that creates a negative impression of an area and contributes to people’s fear of crime; … is the most common type of property vandalism; … is often the first element in a spiral of decline; … Its artistic merits are irrelevant. It represents one group of people imposing themselves on everyone else and as such is a form of pollution, like people playing loud music … is also a green issue as it is an attack on the environment.” Attempting to present a more objective view, Stowers (2005) says simply “Graffiti is art”, but then follows this with an argument against the establishment definitions with “The reasons, including aesthetic criteria, as to why it is an art form far outweigh the criticism of illegality, incoherence, and nonstandard presentation.” Other than the illegal act of painting on an unsanctioned public or private property space, some types of graffiti fall definitely within the bounds of an artistic definition while others do not, and the problem is not simply a clear cut distinction between image production or words scratched out on a surface but instead rests on a rather subjective definition of art as it is understood by the mainstream, hegemonic conception of the mass media. Because of its unsanctioned element, graffiti is recognized as “one of the strongest assertions of individual identity in the art world” (Sadeghi, 2006). It is seen as one of the only art forms not constrained within the hegemonic view of the mass media and the political agendas and, as such, is able to express the viewpoints of the oppressed, to evoke the emotions of the angry and the downtrodden and to celebrate the victories of the little people. “It was originally placed without consent into the public sphere … This work defies the socially ‘acceptable’ forms of representation and exhibition, preferring a milieu that is at street level, a kind of urban midway” (Sadeghi, 2006). Rather than confining itself to the acceptable norms of contemporary art definitions and high-dollar, high-class exhibition halls, graffiti art jumps beyond these limitations to take its message to the people from which it comes. It is the art of the streets, the art of the common people and the opposite side of the world-story of the elite that was unable to gain recognition for its brilliance, funding for its advancement or exhibition space for its messages of resistance to the dominant ideals. It was because of the easy accessibility and the ability to gain widespread recognition throughout a large geographical area that first gave rise to the art form in the 1970s when it was termed subway art (Stowers, 2005). Through this medium, the problem of a lack of financing for the art, the exhibition hall or the price of admission tickets was removed as “art was delivered throughout the boroughs … bring[ing] the mountain to Mohammed” (Sadeghi, 2006). The typically subversive nature of this art thus becomes a tool for the anti-hegemonic resistance, speaking on an individual level with those who live at the street level and perceive that they are being asked to adapt to a world-view that is outside of or in opposition to their own sphere of experience. Examining the art work of one graffiti artist, journalist Simon Hattenstone (2003) explains the way in which this is accomplished: “When I do come across them [examples of graffiti art], surreptitiously peeping out of an alley or boldly emblazoned on a wall, I find it hard to contain myself. They feel personal, as if they are just for me, and they feel public as if they are a gift for everyone. They make me smile and feel optimistic about the possibilities of shared dreams and common ownership.” While part of this emotional response is due to the content of the images presented, part of it is also contained in the subversive element of creating the art. According to Hattenstone (2003), fans of one particular graffiti artist include this as a part of their devotion, “they tell me how he comes by stealth in the night, how he has look-outs posted while he works, how his first exhibition will be in a warehouse though only the number of the road (475) is known and not the road itself. They say that Banksy has customised the city, reclaimed it, made it theirs.” The excitement of moving outside of the circles of the officially sanctioned, government approved and corporately supported dominant viewpoint of the fabulously wealthy is captured in the graffiti artist’s ability to capture a sense of the observations, struggles and triumphs of the common man, beginning to re-establish connections and re-enforcing personal observations that strike against the claims of the powers that be. As the fans of Banksy noted, this ability to speak to the concerns of the common man has re-asserted their impression that their voices are important, too. These claims for the impact of one graffiti artist in London are echoed in the findings of studies regarding graffiti art. In study after study, it is found that the graffiti artist is saying something that most of his contemporaries on the street have been prevented from saying for any number of reasons – lack of confidence, fear of reprisal, etc. Again, this is accomplished not just through the subject of the art, but also in the way in which the art is practiced. “The medium itself implies alienation, discontentment, marginality, repression, resentment, rebellion: no matter what it says, graffiti always implies a ‘fuck you’. Though addressing the larger society in this contemptuous manner may be a secondary or even tertiary element of the graffiti writer’s agenda, this element always lurks in the background of every graffito on every wall” (Phillips, 1999: 23). This message cannot be separated from the art form because of the nature of placing the art upon the unsanctioned spaces of the city. This felonious act screams defiance at the establishment even as do many of the images presented. “We are used to taking our history from aristocrats and statesmen and their paid scribes. But through graffiti we discover evidence of another version of history, characterized by oppression and opposition to the official point of view. Topics too sensitive, too bigoted, too outrageous for the official version are the natural province [of graffiti]” (Reisner & Wechsler, 1974: vi). Like the larger social context, graffiti has similarly been demonstrated in case after case to have the kind of individual element noted above. “Through the act of graffiti, a second message may be promoted, which is central to its nature; the content of each graffiti piece is unique to the context and circumstances from which every individual writes. Thus, graffiti is not only a form of political resistance, but also remains a way by which people may assume a sense of cohesiveness, rallying around shared ideology” (Bartolomeo, 2001). To greater or lesser extent, depending upon the political and social conditions of a given area, graffiti continues to emerge as the voice of resistance, the portrait of the ‘other’ and a challenge to the status quo. Recognizing that graffiti as an art form is not likely to go away despite the many new technological advancements in paint and other coatings that resist spray paint applications, some world leaders have begun to promote the concept of providing blank wall space on which it would be sanctioned for graffiti artists to practice their skills. According to a report in the BBC (Duffy, 2002), such concepts have been implemented in some areas but have received insufficient funding, upkeep or attention to be effective. The idea originated in London at the suggestion of Dr. Kurt Iveson in which authorised graffiti walls would be established within inner city areas upon which graffiti artists would be permitted to create their art and has had some support, but many have argued against it by pointing to failed projects elsewhere as well as to the inherent subversive element of the art form. While the artists themselves say that part of the art is the thrill they gain from attempting to pull off an image without getting nabbed, many others “find graffiti intimidating” and law enforcement officials “believe graffiti walls ‘legitimize’ graffiti and serve as a ‘practising ground’ for graffiti writers who go on to scrawl illegally” (Duffy, 2002). As the debate continues on regarding what to do about the ‘graffiti problem’, it will have to confront the issues of providing space and voice to a dissenting element in a hegemonic world. It is unlikely that the issue will go away, either, as graffiti remains nearly the only form of art available to the general public, both as artists and as viewers. While museums and other exhibition halls remain open to the public occasionally, the works displayed increasingly reflect the same world view promoted by the dominant white upper class corporate identity and require both the cost of a ticket and a block of time in which the public can go see. Graffiti, on the other hand, exists where they live, peeks out from bare corners, brightens the world of the inner city and communicates symbols of togetherness, understanding and individualism in a world where these concepts seem to be fading out of existence. References Bartolomeo, Bradley J. (2001). “Cement or Canvas: Aerosol Art & The Changing Face of Graffiti in the 21st Century.” Graffiti. Available 2 May 2007 from Duffy, Jonathan. (5 November 2002). “(The) Plan to ‘Legalise’ Graffiti.” BBC. Available 2 May 2007 from Hattenstone, Simon. (17 July 2003). “Something to Spray.” Guardian Unlimited. Available 2 May 2007 from Parker, Dewitt H. (November 2003). “The Definition of Art.” The Principles of Aesthetics. Authorama. Available 2 May 2007 from Phillips, Susan. (1999). Wallbangin: Graffiti and Gangs in LA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reisner, Robert George & Wechsler, Lorraine. (1974). Encyclopedia of Graffiti. New York: MacMillan. Sadeghi, Sabrina. (2006). “Exhibition Road Show.” Tour press release. New York: Martinez Gallery. Available 2 May 2007 from Stowers, George C. (Fall 1997). “Graffiti Art: An Essay Concerning The Recognition of Some Forms of Graffiti As Art.” Art Crimes. “What is Graffiti?” (26 January 2007). Dublin City Council. Available 2 May 2007 from Read More