Modern Visual Artwork - Report Example

Practices of Research in Art, Design and Education: Graffiti al Affiliation Modern Visual Artwork Introduction Modern and contemporary artwork has been based on the artistic approach arising from the avant-garde ideas that the artist finds convincingly appropriate. Based on these ideals, the modern artwork has given birth to artworks that are better regarded as being of revolutionary value having been produced in the act of rebellion against the traditional art practices. The modernity in the artworks significantly alter the long-held perceptions and ideas concerning the functions of art and artistic models. In an environment where change is inevitable, such an alteration has been welcome and expected (Valle & Weiss 2010, pp. 128-135). This paper is aimed at analysing the research practice in art design and education. For the purpose of this paper, the analysis will be focused on a specific art for which it will analyse the origin and research around it and the success story of the artwork. Further, the paper will look at the flaws associated with the artwork as identified through research and provide a situation of the artwork. The artwork under analysis in this paper is Wall Art or graffiti. Graffiti is an art that has a long history. It has been developed and nurtured over years as a heritage of a small group of people who are considered to belong to a specific art movement. It is one of the contemporary modern artworks that has raised quite a good deal of controversy over time. Some artists define graffiti as the arrangement of illicit marks and signs in such a way that they establish a coherent composition (Adams & Winter 1997, pp. 337-360). These marks are made on walls and roads by individuals who are not generally professional artists. Graffiti in the Modern Art Whether illicit or not, graffiti has developed to become a recognized art in the contemporary world. Although graffiti has been in the field of art for quite long, the contemporary application of the artwork has been seen since the 1970s in the United States of America. Previously graffiti were related to the ancient Roman Empire as their only evidence was on their architecture. The reason behind the re-emergence in the late twentieth century was a part of the society information initiative. It aimed at communicating to the public illicit information about the social and political evils that were happening around them at that time. The perception by the authorities of this purpose resulted to the mislabelling of the artwork as illicit and illegal in many parts of the world. This has been the main reason behind the slow adoption and recognition of graffiti and wall art as of any professional importance (Haworth et al. 2013, pp. 53-63). To date, graffiti has not been fully recognized as an art of the same value as those displayed in museums and galleries. However, this does not strictly deny this growing form of art a status in the modern genuine art. This is because graffiti is rich in the form and all other basic aesthetic elements of art. Graffiti has, therefore, successfully travelled through great ages, traditions and cultures to become what is seen today as part of the large collection of contemporary artwork. Accepting graffiti as an art took a long way from the time when the art was identified with vandalism, criminals and other forms of law breakers. Lately some forms of graffiti have been justifiably recognized as forms of art. For instance, while tags and slurs have little aesthetic value, murals as used for community enhancements and public places beautification take a considerable amount of skill and creativity to produce (Lachmann 1988, p.229). Although they are commissioned, as opposed to the illegal branded slurs and tags on the walls and underpasses, they are by far more colourful. Graffiti art, which makes use of a spray can and paint is even more skill-taking. It produces an artwork that is graffiti and stylish that has a high level of aesthetic appeal. The emergence of the spray paint allowed the tags, which were originally thin lettered and weak in terms of aesthetic value to get enlarged and have a deeper colour. This phenomenon separated the desperate slur makers of the streets who were only after having their names known in the community from the artists. The simple spray paint was also easy to copy and could be done by anyone regardless of whether they had a talent in art or not. The realization led to the detailed double lined outline of the street graffiti by street artists and the popular bubble-like lettering. More complex styles have since evolved including the stamping of artwork in graffiti to produce a 3-D effect (Adams & Winter 1997, pp. 337-360). Graffitists are real artists with talent and authenticity who have been neglected in their own field for which they have so much to deliver. Due to this neglect, many have resulted to the streets, moving singly or in crews and making known their existence through artistic drawings that are appealing as well as challenging. They range in ages and socio-economic status thus disqualifying the thought that the graffiti are aimed at intimidating the authorities. The main reason these people engage in graffiti is that they feel that they have a talent that has been neglected and largely mislabelled by people. The artists, therefore, seek recognition and also communicate to other artists and the community through graffiti. This form of communication effectively cut across cultures ages and socio-economic status (Au et al. 2012, pp.219-228). To propagate the art outside the formal settings, the graffiti crews even train novices on the use of spray cans painting to produce various styles and also adjust the nozzles to produce various different artistic effects that the crew intends to keep as identity. Plenty of creativities, planning and effort is, therefore, required to produce an impressive piece. Through the efforts of the artists themselves and their quest to get their talents recognized, graffiti has moved and developed unconsciously through time to become the less criminalized piece of art it is today. Currently, institutions and visual art lovers are imploring the possible use of graffiti in art education and developing a culture of graffiti. This will go a long way in the decriminalization of this field of art and helping people develop their talents. It will also serve to increase awareness and responsible use of the art to enhance the aesthetic beauty of parks and community centres (Ley & Cybriwsky 1974, pp. 419-405). Besides the success story of graffiti and its evolution, this contemporary artwork has its flaws that limit its utilization and recognition. First, graffitists are out to convey a message that is strong enough to warrant their anonymity. This has led to the art work being labelled as vandalism. Sometimes even the message is not received by the intended audience, and the artist is not compensated. This is the reason a graffiti artwork in the street with a great encouraging message is likely to be considered illegal while a simple graffiti in a gallery with no message at all is legal. Moreover, the artist whose work appear in the gallery is likely to get compensated for his work especially if the artwork is sold (Tsoumas 2011, p. 356). Further, most graffiti are placed on public or private property without permission. This qualifies these pieces of art to be considered illegal and get banned. If the issue of decriminalisation is to take place, the artists themselves must be prepared to seal the flaws. This should be by first realising their talents and getting more involved in artworks that are helpful to the community, these artworks can then be placed in galleries where the message intended will be viewed by the audience to which it is directed. This not only help to popularise and legalise the art but also ensure that when a graffiti article is sold, then the artist can obtain some form of compensation. Critical analysis Analysing graffiti as an art leads to the identification of several elements of art that are present in graffiti. First, graffiti contains colour. It is this colour that the artist uses to make marks and send messages. Regardless of where the messages are researching on graffiti have indicated that graffitist are artist not less than any other undiscovered artist in the street. Secondly, like any other fine art artist, a graffitist will make plans for his or her graffiti before putting it down on the street walls. In some cases, sketches are even made before the real graffiti is composed. This indicated the professionalism that a good graffiti requires and hence the need for more recognition (Halsey 2006, pp. 275-306). Thirdly, while considering the artists intention, it is necessary to note that a graffitist’s intention is to get recognised. Although the process they follow to achieve this has for long been criminalised, the artist would wish that the graffiti be regarded as an art that can effectively be used to communicate ideas and specific feelings to a specified or general audience. This intention is clearly in alignment with the professional motive of any art, to allow people communicate their feelings and share ideas with one another via artwork. Further, it is a function of graffiti as an art to beautify the environment in which it has been placed. Regardless of the location of these great artworks, graffiti always look appealing especially when the hand of the artist has been professionally involved to produce clear aesthetic appeal. When a large wall art has been placed on an abandoned alley or building, it increases the beauty of the environment and adds life to the locality that would otherwise look haunted and lonely. All the aesthetic properties of art; from the basic issue of colour combination to the complex issues of artists intention and the application of art in beautification and message delivery, which are ascribed in all the other forms of art are strongly present in graffiti (Au et al. 2012, pp. 219-228). The most significant obstacles to the recognition of graffiti as an art are the location and mode of presentation. If the graffitists are fully involved and recognised, these are issues that can be amicably solved to ensure that the art is developed, and spray can art be recognised. It beats logic to disregard graffiti as an art basing the argument on the lack of the conventional presentation and manner of framing. This is because the artwork has fulfilled all other basic qualities of an art that are more necessary and more fundamental than the presentation or location. From a professional point of view, the location of the artwork in the subways and private walls do not make graffiti less of an art (Moreau & Alderman 2011, pp. 106-124). This just makes the art unsolicited and thus can only be regarded criminal on the basis of vandalism that in the real sense does not disqualify it as an art. Besides, most of the ancient great artists were identified from the illicit artistic work that they did on the streets. This led to their recognition by artistic groups from where their talents were developed and brought to display in galleries. Criminalising their art would not have led to this. Similarly, illegalising graffiti will not help the artists or even the community. This is so for two main reason. First, the criminalisation will only lead to deeper and heightened intention of the artists to become recognised. This will make them do graffiti even more. In fact, this has been the case in America, where the graffitists have come up with the development, freight art, which entails making graffiti on abandoned vehicles. This ensures that their presence is not felt but also taken around the cities and the world. Secondly, art is unstoppable. Any measure to stop the manifestation of art will be met with great opposition that will only serve to increase the strength of the art (Moreau & Alderman 2011, pp. 106-124). Conclusion Graffiti as a contemporary modern artwork has developed from the criminalised art labelled vandalism to the now being recognised form of art. The recognition is however taking a slow pace due to the wrong perception and negative reputation that the art has had over the years. Nonetheless, the art has all the characteristics required for it to be recognised, the reasons for its criminalisation notwithstanding. As a means to reduce the illicit arts on the streets and roadside, measures should be taken to get the artists legitimate. The measure will not only harness the talents and probably increase their compensation for their work but also help recognise the art and reduce its illicit application. Banning of spray paints does not help much (Valle & Weiss 2010, pp. 128-135). There are many legitimate graffitists whose works appear on galleries and displays. They obtain compensations for their work, and some even make great sales from their artworks. From their view, however, showcasing street art I gallery is wrong. This s based on the fact that most of the street artists have risked their lives and freedom to create great graffiti and wish to have the benefit of anonymity based on the message contained. However, seeking recognition in the streets will only worsen the issue because it will always be regarded as a battle. The artists too should realise the broad application of their talents and join institutions where they can be harnessed and developed. References Adams, K.L. & Winter, A., 1997. Gang Graffiti as a Discourse Genre. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 1, pp.337–360. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00020. Au, C.E. et al., 2012. Tagger: Bringing real world graffiti social interaction to virtual san francisco. In Proceedings - 2012 ASE/IEEE International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2012 ASE/IEEE International Conference on Social Computing, SocialCom/PASSAT 2012. pp. 219–228. Halsey, M., 2006. “Our desires are ungovernable”: Writing graffiti in urban space. Theoretical Criminology, 10, pp.275–306. Haworth, B., Bruce, E. & Iveson, K., 2013. Spatio-temporal analysis of graffiti occurrence in an inner-city urban environment. Applied Geography, 38, pp.53–63. Lachmann, R., 1988. Graffiti as Career and Ideology. American Journal of Sociology, 94, p.229. Ley, D. & Cybriwsky, R., 1974. Urban Graffiti As Territorial Markers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 64, pp.491–505. Moreau, T. & Alderman, D.H., 2011. Graffiti Hurts And The Eradication Of Alternative Landscape Expression. Geographical Review, 101, pp.106–124. Tsoumas, J., 2011. The aesthetic impact of graffiti art on the modern Greek urban landscape. Ángulo Recto. Revista de estudios sobre la ciudad como espacio plural, 3. Valle, I. & Weiss, E., 2010. Participation in the figured world of graffiti. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, pp.128–135.  Read More