“Exit Through the Gift Shop”
From IMBD: Filmmaker Thierry Guetta’s project to chronicle the underground world of street art takes a fascinating twist when he meets elusive stencil artist Banksy, who turns the project around to film Guetta while he reinvents himself as a street artist.”

The documentary traces the history of the graffiti artist movement and ends with a question of when is art, art? And, actually, who gets to decide? Is it “real” art because someone buys it and hangs it in a museum? Because it’s been given a place of distinction by a greater power? Was Banksy a “real” artist, creating then placing his graffiti art around the city? He, and Guetta, ended up with gallery shows drawing big buzz, big money in the art world and on the street. Did it loose it’s original artistic grit by becoming art on a wall in a gallery rather than on a building?

And when is graffiti vandalism vs. art? When tagging others’ art? Maybe. But spending hours on a one’s art that then is pasted/posted stencil painted to a “blank” non-art wall, is that not art? Hmmm… I’d love to hear more thoughts on this.

Report this comment

Report this comment

Report this comment

That said, when you tag someone else’s creation you are making a choice that directly impacts others, and does so in a way that does not take their feelings, dreams or values into account in any way. That fails the fundamental test of respect.

If you want to further your aesthetic, organize camps and art projects that explicitly invite others to tag/modify them and explain the values you hope to promote.

Report this comment

re: Tagging. Tagging isn’t art. As much as your name means to you, it doesn’t mean it belongs anywhere/everywhere.
Graffiti can be art, but uninvited art isn’t art – it’s vandalism. As has been stated, unless the ‘artist’ is ok with me going to his camp/car/house and ‘expressing myself on it’ then he/she is just a delusional vandal.

Report this comment

Yes, I think that’s about right. Thanks for asking!

Report this comment

I’m Barry Brumitt, the artist who, along with Gregor Talbot), created a set of two dozen minimalist attractive museum-style signs, mentioned above, intended for placement near other’s work, to create a faux Museum Tour of playa art.

This piece was, in fact, expressly disallowed by the Artery on tuesday afternoon of the ’12 burn.

—– Summary —–
* This piece was respectful to other’s art, consistent with many established default-world art practices, intended to add value, and is consistent with the 10 Principals of Burning Man
* It was not an instance of quick, vulgar defacement, “tagging” if you will, which rests on much shakier ethical ground.
* I strongly believe that: 1)the ethics around this decision should be reconsidered, and 2) a clear statement should be made by the ARTery of their (anti-) Vandalism Policy.

—— Long Story ——
Sparky says in a comment above:
“Where do you draw the line, and who gets to decide where the line is?”

This is an excellent question, indeed, for it illustrates precisely the aesthetic and social norms which art has (probably since the word “art” existed) sought to explore, define, and challenge. Graven images were a sentence to hell. Images of Mohammad are verboten. Shostakovich was imprisoned for a concerto. Goya was threatened with death for his painting of a nude during the inquisition. The religious right succeeded in censoring a video at the National Portrait Gallery (David Wojnarowicz), by calling it blasphemous — this just 3 years ago.

The point? Whenever there is a line to be crossed, art may illuminate, explore, or challenge it — often profitably, especially in the eyes of history.

Now I do not feel that defacing artwork is a respectable form of expression… respect (almost always) means the viewer leaves the art fundamentally intact. However, if a piece of art was clearly advocating actual unethical (read: evil) actions (say, a statue of a doctor being hung, with a list of ObGyns with addresses, some checked off, some not, titled “Justice”), I would reluctantly suggest defacement could be a reasonable response, for vulgarity can merit vulgarity.

But leaving aside serious ethical conundrums (above), clear cases of defacement, (the vast majority of tagging incidents) there are still a wide variety of acceptable, even valuable, ways in which art is transformed through participation, ones very likely not condoned by the artist…

Let’s consider some.

Video art, projected on public buildings can be beautiful and amazing — and for a time, that building’s appearance is altered. Protesters can surround and crowd art offensive to their ethics — again, the ability to view the art is altered. FSM “believers” insist on having their diety placed next to a publicly displayed Christian Creche. Artists set up easels and paint scenes of art. An observer seeing such a painting, especially in progress, will doubtless have their view altered, even if microscopically. A building is erected, perhaps an architectural masterpiece, perhaps a Costco, behind an exquisite statue.

Any of these might be thought of as intrusive, changing the intent, lessening the work — but we appear to choose not to call *these* defacement, let alone vandalism, at least so goes the dominant paradigm.

Further, in the default world at least, the far-less inflammatory acts of criticism, commentary, and discussion are generally likewise all-clear, nay, even explicitly permitted and encouraged via fair-use clauses.

But for whatever reason, the act of commenting, riffing, remixing, participating, interacting, playing with playa art by placing a simple *sign* — something far less intrusive than the dust, the playa’s natural visual background, art cars, abandoned bicycles, content-free comments by passers-by, the environment itself — this, a *sign* has been deemed by BRC’s art culture’s ethics’ stewards (the ARTery) as to be unacceptable.

A reasonable approach to this conundrum could be try to balance the applicable ethical principals: immediacy, participation, communal effort, and radical self expression. But it seems that default-world rules “well, you can’t put up signs in museum, so you can’t do it in BRC either” have been adopted without any such rigor having been applied.

I think this piece has illuminated a sufficiently grey area as to merit a more careful re-examination of how the Ten Principals should be applied when it comes to artwork.

Worse still, the Vandalism Policy, a clear limit on expression, may even run contrary to the principal of Decommodification: is this prohibition intended to protect the value of ARTery brand?

I’d hope you, the gentle reader, would pause to consider the following:

Is an (unstated) vandalism policy a good one, given the questionable ramifications and value propositions I’ve suggested above, especially since this policy may run contrary to the organization itself:
“The mission of the ARTery is to serve and defend artistic expression at Burning Man.”

I remain unclear how artistic expression was served by the ARTery censoring (prohibiting, would be a more polite but slightly doublespeak way of saying it) a Faux Museum Art Tour.

The artistic expression of tour itself was expressly NOT defended by the ARTery, even though (I believe) it offered net positive value, was respectful & safe, was far removed from “tagging”, and was quite in accordance with the Ten Principals that guide the ethics of BRC.

Regardless of the piece, I think the ARTery owes the community of artists they represent a clear statement of their Vandalism policy, plus any other such double-secret-probations currently in-force.

Art hopes to evoke response.

Hence we’re back to the top again: “Where do you draw the line, who gets to decide where the line is?”

Report this comment

A lot of selfish choices can make you smile. The perspective that the good feeling you get from something is itself a justification for doing it displays the intellectual depth of children — admired for their ability to “let go,” but also reviled for their cruelty, their tendency to destroy, to harm, to spoil.

No, I don’t want cops arresting taggers in BRC. But I don’t want cops arresting thiefs in BRC, either. I want our fellow citizens to make smart choices, and I hope the option to tag becomes widely recognized as an unethical act. No one waxes on about the smile you get from the taste of food stolen from another camp. Even thieves know they’re guilty.

So yes, the conversation must reach the ears of “Disco” and all the small-hearted shallow-minded sociopaths out their ruining things to make their lips curl. Ironically, the best way to reach everyone may be to have this discussion on the walls of our rented portapotties.

Report this comment

Can I spray paint the windshield of your car, slash your tent and set fire to your food supply because to me, it improves it, it’s radical self expression and I consider it to be art?

Where do you draw the line, and who gets to decide where the line is?

Report this comment

Report this comment