I do think that the different motivations for street art nowadays can tell us a lot about different groups of people and the role they play (and don’t play) in society. This essay contains some initial thoughts on the topic but needs to be extended for further work.
First it might be a good idea to answer the question of what do we understand street art is: In the widest sense I define street art in this essay as any deliberate intervention in public space. I will concentrate on the visual street arts. Public space relates to any place the public can reach or see. In that sense performance art and landscape art are street art. Street art may be visual, audio, action or any combination of those. Street art deals with the given space and material and adds an artistic unexpected component to it. Although architecture would fulfill all these points I do not consider it to be street art. Also advertising fulfills most of the points. Maybe it is a good idea to add one word to the definition: noncommercial. I do think advertising can be seen at the edge of street art and other visual influence on the city space depending on the actual piece.
What I see as a very important point in this discussion is the question what art aims at. I think we should see art as something opening a new perspective on our lives, our society or just things we take for granted. We should also understand the motivation of street art and the role the motivations play for the actual art that is created. Graffiti art developed during the post war period as a way to express the will of changing the environment people lived in. Graffiti artists became aware of many plain surfaces in public spaces. It started from big grey motorway bridges and slowly grew into city spaces. Mostly walls of empty houses and the big walls of residential bunkers in the satellite cities where occupied first. Graffiti artists claimed against the misanthropic modern architecture and city planning of the post-war period. Graffiti was their way to participate actively in visual production of the city. And it grew into a broader, a political and social relevant practice. During the 1970th and 1980th first city planners were asking why people do graffiti, instead of just realizing “the problem” of graffiti on walls. Slowly a participatory practice of city planning and development was introduced in most of the Western countries. I don’t want to claim that only graffiti art was the reason for that, but graffiti was the only in the closer sense visible force. I do think that shows that art is able to raise awareness in society through visual, audio or other means.
But still street art did not disappear after this point in history. So there must be other drivers for the movement. I think the need of self-expression will always be the easiest to understand for everyone. But one could ask: why in public space? Why not in one’s home in a more traditional artistic way? These two questions lead to one thing: being recognized. I don’t think that all street artists want to be recognized as artists but as human beings, as existing individual persons. I do claim this need is an expression of societal reality: Individuals do not play the main role in our society. Or they do play the main role but only as a part of the system As long as the system works individual needs are not realized or at least not taken seriously. That is how all Western “developed” societies work. That is how they need to work, as long as the system is more important then the individuals within it.
Another motivation of street artists is the participation in the aesthetic appearance of the environment. I think this might be the first reason for many people (at least many educated people) to think about doing art in public space. It might be the motivation for all those people participating in the legal street art movement, which is still very little compared to the amount of illegal or “on the edge” street art projects. Personally I got into street art exactly by that means. It was the interest of how people can participate in the visual making of a city, but the longer I think about this the more I realize that only certain people will get involved in “official” street art and other participatory projects. There are people who will never get involved in official projects. By official I do not only mean government driven but also organized by other organizations or individuals. This might be due to a lack of self-consciousness or not being interested in the so-called artistic expression. Not all people want to become part of the system I described before. Offering official surfaces for street art will therefore never solve any “problem”. It will just drive people, who don’t want to be part of this system, to use other surfaces. By saying that I am not claiming that we shouldn’t offer places for official street art. There will always be people interested in these lots and therefore use it. For them it will feel as being realized as individuals with individual needs of self-expression.
Another motivation of street artists is the participation in the aesthetic appearance of the environment. I think this might be the first reason for many people (at least many educated people) to think about doing art in public space. It might be the motivation for all those people participating in the legal street art movement, which is still very little compared to the amount of illegal or “on the edge” street art projects. Personally I got into street art exactly by that means. It was the interest of how people can participate in the visual making of a city, but the longer I think about this the more I realize that only certain people will get involved in “official” street art and other participatory projects. There are people who will never get involved in official projects. By official I do not only mean government driven but also organized by other organizations or individuals. This might be due to a lack of self-consciousness or not being interested in the so-called artistic expression. Not all people want to become part of the system I described before. Offering official surfaces for street art will therefore never solve any “problem”. It will just drive people, who don’t want to be part of this system, to use other surfaces. By saying that I am not claiming that we shouldn’t offer places for official street art. There will always be people interested in these lots and therefore use it. For them it will feel as being realized as individuals with individual needs of self-expression.
The motivation for participation in visual making of a city has also another side and I am sure that this is still a key motivation of mine. It is about showing that people actually use the space; people do live in the cities. Personally I sometimes start thinking: What if a Martian comes to some parts of Helsinki (e.g. East-Pasilla) at nighttime? He/She won’t find any human being, but little signs that people have been there. There is life.
Another aspect is to show that there is actually an alternative city inside the city. There are people aware of their surroundings, not everything is as government-ruled as it seems to the individual. And it shows: There is creativity.
Looking at street art shows us there are people like you and me. I do claim that this is also a phenomenon of societal reality, and in this case it might even be social reality: It is about loneliness in cities, about isolation in society. It might be a common misunderstanding that people are nowadays lonelier then at any time in history and I don’t want to argue on that, but the search for and happiness when finding similar people in nowadays urban spaces seems to be a indication for people feeling lonely in a way. Or it might just be an indication that people are always looking for similar people around them. Street art might become a medium of communication in that sense. It is easier to create an anonymous piece of street art, then stop someone on the street and start talking to him/her about your life. The first one is at least more accepted, even if mostly illegal. One might argue that this form of communication makes people even lonelier, since it is no direct human-to-human communication. In that case I’d bring in another aspect: It might be a more interesting way of communication and the feeling of not knowing the other brings in a mysterious component. It might be the same motivation as people have in chat rooms but in a sense it is more “real” and it is more creative.
The last factor I want to write about in this essay is spreading ideological or private opinions. Again street art is understood as a medium of communication. I think almost all street art (and even art) projects do have this as part of their motivation. Labeling, Tagging, Graffiti and other forms of street art are used by right wing as well as left wing parties and organizations to make their opinions spread in public space. It is about setting up ideologies in public space and it’s not always done in a very creative way. But still it can be described as a part of street art.
The last factor I want to write about in this essay is spreading ideological or private opinions. Again street art is understood as a medium of communication. I think almost all street art (and even art) projects do have this as part of their motivation. Labeling, Tagging, Graffiti and other forms of street art are used by right wing as well as left wing parties and organizations to make their opinions spread in public space. It is about setting up ideologies in public space and it’s not always done in a very creative way. But still it can be described as a part of street art.
If we do understand advertising as a category of street art we can also add spreading around commercial, economical expectations in public space. This might not really be about the art in public space-discussion, but since the amount of ads in our surroundings is so huge and it tells us so much about how our society functions I want to stay with advertising for a moment. Money is the most important driving force of capitalism. Others are consumption and growth. People in these systems are reduced to play their role. Public space is not (and historically has never been) made to meet people and exchange ideas. It is preliminary built for trade and it has ever since the market place has been invented. (One could even argue it has also been before.) Public space is made for consumption. In my opinion street art (in the smaller sense) can become a force to change that. Street art can show that non-commercial activities can be done in public space and it can raise awareness.
I want to end this essay with one question that is important to me: What is street art good for? What is its sake? I start thinking that art has the chance to raise awareness of different things. Those things don’t always have to be negative and I do think that it is ok to render bad things aesthetically positive to a certain extend (like the UK-based chewing gum artist does; some examples of his work: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rahid1/sets/286517/).
I want to end this essay with one question that is important to me: What is street art good for? What is its sake? I start thinking that art has the chance to raise awareness of different things. Those things don’t always have to be negative and I do think that it is ok to render bad things aesthetically positive to a certain extend (like the UK-based chewing gum artist does; some examples of his work: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rahid1/sets/286517/).
In my opinion art should not be done to be art. It should be done to tell us something. This something might be about the artist, about his/her life, about society, about reality, about illusion, … . Art doesn’t have to claim something. I do myself prefer doing art that raises awareness (not attention). I do think that people can interpret it themselves and my own interpretation might not be the best or right one. It is just mine.
I would like to add a short statement/question to this essay: Is art still art even if it is not perceived as art? At an art school like Taik we tend to claim that everything is art, even if it is not understood as art. I do think that it is not important whether something is called “art”, “design” or just “project”. What is important is the idea and it’s relevance to people. Those people might be the artist OR the audience OR both. Art shouldn’t be done for arts sake. It should be done to express something. And even though I personally do not understand tagging as art I do not devalue it: What is most important to me is the aim/the need of self-expression and in that sense I do not see graffiti, tagging, performances, media projections, dancing, … on different levels. They are all the same: A manifestation of the need of self-expression of individuals.
I would like to add a short statement/question to this essay: Is art still art even if it is not perceived as art? At an art school like Taik we tend to claim that everything is art, even if it is not understood as art. I do think that it is not important whether something is called “art”, “design” or just “project”. What is important is the idea and it’s relevance to people. Those people might be the artist OR the audience OR both. Art shouldn’t be done for arts sake. It should be done to express something. And even though I personally do not understand tagging as art I do not devalue it: What is most important to me is the aim/the need of self-expression and in that sense I do not see graffiti, tagging, performances, media projections, dancing, … on different levels. They are all the same: A manifestation of the need of self-expression of individuals.
