Art as Substance

Banksy, a street artist from Britain, pushes the boundaries for how art interacts with the world and masterfully displays art that invokes our own insecurities or helps us understand those strains within our culture. As seen above the picture shows a piece of art Banksy put up on a wall separating Israel and Palestine. Some people label this kind of expression as graffiti or un-intellectual, but it defines a sentiment the artist wanted to exploit and share; the unnerving conflict between Israel and Palestine and what that truly signifies to him. This street art might turn some people off, but it brings into light crucial social tension, even though uncomfortable at times, that need to be addressed. The article

Art allows the user the ultimate freedom to express themselves. The freedom to paint, to create, or to mold any inner-most desire into a solid piece of tangible effort marks a human triumph of sheer determination. As I have been to many art exhibitions in my life it is apparent that artists put a lot of themselves into the art. Though, society can interfere or counteract that measure when the user feels pressure to conform to his or her surroundings within the society. Many artists censor themselves in fear of retaliation from their surrounding society. They hide pieces of art they created in horror that the ideas represented in them would not bode well with the public. This has happened numerous times throughout history. An example of this is the artist Courbet whose realist art of peasants was considered not “high” enough art by the French and would not be placed alongside other notable artists of his time. In modern day times artists strive to clash with society to uncover strains within their own system.

YOU CAN FIND AN ARTICLE ABOUT BANKSY IN THE MIDDLE EAST HERE

Introduction

We all look at art and wonder why it was created in the first place. What was the intention of the artist? Did he or she know how popular or unpopular their art would be? Did they ultimately care? By looking at media like art, movies, music and literature we can gauge how efficiently their ideas come across to the audience because, in all fairness, WE ARE the audience. Some artists have a hard time constructing themselves as artists without the help of publicists, hairstylists, agents, brokers, or (in some cases) people that manipulate their rich parents to write blank checks that enable them to go out and do blow or actually blow (sorry Paris Hilton I could not resist myself) that, in turn, allow the paparazzi and celebrity gossip circles to label them as struggling "artists".

Does the substance of the art outweigh the Fame or vice versa? In certain styles of art the argument could be made either way, but where is the line going to be drawn in a year, a couple of years, or even a decade or two? Who and what defines it? Do the corporations (inherently intent on being greedy fascist swine) control the radio industry, the television industry, and the movie industry to only mold them in a way that drives their cash flow and expensive lives? HELL YA! Who would not want a bitchin' Ferrari and a wife with gloriously fake, never sagging, full breasts like a pristine 18 year-old girl. Welcome to the 21st century keen on living fast while the CO2 destroys our future and suffocates our newborns.

The next couple of weeks will be spent showing art that I feel is an appropriate way of expressing ideas and rhetoric because, after all, I am a very opinionated person. Just let me tell you that I know a majority of the art I will be talking about has had an immense amount of financial backing by persons with deep pockets. What I feel art comes down to is are the 1% or the really generous millionaires backing the artists who will push boundaries, further themselves and others intellectually and educationally, or are they only interested because of the entrepreneurial aspect of accumulating wealth. Is the greater part of the population of America right in giving its sole attention to the likes of Britney Spears (I loved her shaved head by the way, cute as pie!), Sarah Palin (what!?, a decade or so ago who would have liked to see a weekly Discovery show about an ex-governor with the serene background of Alaska?).

ART REQUIRES THOUGHT BY THE INDIVIDUALS TRYING TO CREATE IT AND MAINSTREAM ART IS MANIPULATED BY BIG BUSINESS SUITS FOR MONETARY GAINS. LIKE THE WISE-OLD ADAGE SAYS: SEX SELLS. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ART TODAY THAT POPULAR CULTURE IN AMERICA IS UNDER THE THUMB OF EXECUTIVES.

What are we to do about it if money controls how media is distributed around the country, how it plagues the popular social network sites, how it controls advertising on the internet and television, etc. The art that "seems" to infiltrate our day to day lives is meticulously programmed into us like robots, and sometimes, robots revolt.

Next week I will be bringing up Banksy, a very infamous British street artist that is critically acclaimed and has had numerous pieces exhibited in galleries throughout the world. I will leave you with these questions...

Is street art not considered street art when exhibited in a gallery? Is it "high" art? Is Banksy an artist supported by those who enjoy what he does or is he supported by those wanting to reap his benefits? Does his anonymity allow his ideas in his art to have merit? Ponder these questions and see ya'll next week.

YOU CAN FIND BANKSY'S WEBSITE HERE

~J.D. Gurns, 1/15/11