Comments on: Defining Art in the Commons: The Case of Building Owners and Graffiti in Edmonton http://ablawg.ca/2010/03/23/defining-art-in-the-commons-the-case-of-building-owners-and-graffiti-in-edmonton/ Tue, 22 May 2012 09:23:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Graffiti – the bad, the ugly and the meaningful – Community Intelligence http://ablawg.ca/2010/03/23/defining-art-in-the-commons-the-case-of-building-owners-and-graffiti-in-edmonton/#comment-94473 Graffiti – the bad, the ugly and the meaningful – Community Intelligence Thu, 13 May 2010 04:15:10 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2010/03/23/defining-art-in-the-commons-the-case-of-building-owners-and-graffiti-in-edmonton/#comment-94473 Here's an interesting case. What happens when the building owner permits graffiti to occur on his property? Here’s an interesting case. What happens when the building owner permits graffiti to occur on his property?

]]> By: Carmen http://ablawg.ca/2010/03/23/defining-art-in-the-commons-the-case-of-building-owners-and-graffiti-in-edmonton/#comment-88651 Carmen Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:04:46 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2010/03/23/defining-art-in-the-commons-the-case-of-building-owners-and-graffiti-in-edmonton/#comment-88651 Thank you for the comments Chad and Luke. Here are some thoughts in response. Chad, I agree with you that in our eyes, those particular pieces are not comparable to the works of great artists like Banksy. The focus on Bansky in this piece was primarily due to another paper I wrote that specifically looked at Banksy's work, so it was, while a stretch in terms of artistic value, an apt comparison. Many people despise his work as well, goes to show the subjectivity of "art". The point is, as you addressed, who gets to define art and expression. I think the most interesting part of this case is that the building owner, who initially had reported the graffiti to police as vandalism, went to the trouble of addressing the City and taking an action to QB to fight the City order to remove the graffiti. Surely it would be easier to just paint over it? I think that by leaving the graffiti in place the building owner is encouraging more and perhaps better art to be created over top. This is an easily accessed location that presumably an artist could spend a good amount of time working on...exactly the kind of place needed in order for, as Luke suggests, cities to encourage more artful graffiti. Also, if we want to encourage what we consider to be aesthetically pleasing graffiti I think we need to give artists a place to practice. If this building owner says "I think this is art, your bylaw does not address art, therefore I will not remove it", isn't this his right as a property owner to choose to contribute to the development of artistic skills? Thank you for the comments Chad and Luke. Here are some thoughts in response.
Chad, I agree with you that in our eyes, those particular pieces are not comparable to the works of great artists like Banksy. The focus on Bansky in this piece was primarily due to another paper I wrote that specifically looked at Banksy’s work, so it was, while a stretch in terms of artistic value, an apt comparison. Many people despise his work as well, goes to show the subjectivity of “art”.
The point is, as you addressed, who gets to define art and expression. I think the most interesting part of this case is that the building owner, who initially had reported the graffiti to police as vandalism, went to the trouble of addressing the City and taking an action to QB to fight the City order to remove the graffiti. Surely it would be easier to just paint over it? I think that by leaving the graffiti in place the building owner is encouraging more and perhaps better art to be created over top. This is an easily accessed location that presumably an artist could spend a good amount of time working on…exactly the kind of place needed in order for, as Luke suggests, cities to encourage more artful graffiti. Also, if we want to encourage what we consider to be aesthetically pleasing graffiti I think we need to give artists a place to practice. If this building owner says “I think this is art, your bylaw does not address art, therefore I will not remove it”, isn’t this his right as a property owner to choose to contribute to the development of artistic skills?

]]> By: Luke http://ablawg.ca/2010/03/23/defining-art-in-the-commons-the-case-of-building-owners-and-graffiti-in-edmonton/#comment-87060 Luke Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:55:58 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2010/03/23/defining-art-in-the-commons-the-case-of-building-owners-and-graffiti-in-edmonton/#comment-87060 I've always been curious about whether there might be a way for cities to actually encourage more artful graffiti as a way to curb less artful graffiti. Of course judgments of artistic merit are subjective, I think it's safe to say that some graffiti is more aesthetically interesting than others. I think of certain cities in Europe I've visited and even Montreal where there is quite a lot of graffiti, and a lot of it is really quite good. Often building owners will even pay graffiti artists to paint their buildings as a way to dissuade tagging, etc. I’ve always been curious about whether there might be a way for cities to actually encourage more artful graffiti as a way to curb less artful graffiti. Of course judgments of artistic merit are subjective, I think it’s safe to say that some graffiti is more aesthetically interesting than others.

I think of certain cities in Europe I’ve visited and even Montreal where there is quite a lot of graffiti, and a lot of it is really quite good. Often building owners will even pay graffiti artists to paint their buildings as a way to dissuade tagging, etc.

]]> By: Chad Conrad http://ablawg.ca/2010/03/23/defining-art-in-the-commons-the-case-of-building-owners-and-graffiti-in-edmonton/#comment-86438 Chad Conrad Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:31:06 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2010/03/23/defining-art-in-the-commons-the-case-of-building-owners-and-graffiti-in-edmonton/#comment-86438 And of course there is always the issue that this is, regardless of whether it's art, essentially vandalism. I suppose the regulation is at least in part about curbing lawlessness. BTW, for any who had a hard time figuring out the street view, this link should take you to right there: http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=10032+-+79+Avenue+edmonton&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=27.538611,78.310547&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=10032+79+Ave+NW,+Edmonton,+Division+No.+11,+Alberta&ll=53.515173,-113.490089&spn=0,359.971375&z=15&layer=c&cbll=53.515173,-113.490262&panoid=Gb6Nwm_emnyK0aia2lL3Rw&cbp=12,33.01,,1,0.07 And of course there is always the issue that this is, regardless of whether it’s art, essentially vandalism. I suppose the regulation is at least in part about curbing lawlessness.

BTW, for any who had a hard time figuring out the street view, this link should take you to right there:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=10032+-+79+Avenue+edmonton&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=27.538611,78.310547&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=10032+79+Ave+NW,+Edmonton,+Division+No.+11,+Alberta&ll=53.515173,-113.490089&spn=0,359.971375&z=15&layer=c&cbll=53.515173,-113.490262&panoid=Gb6Nwm_emnyK0aia2lL3Rw&cbp=12,33.01,,1,0.07

]]> By: Chad Conrad http://ablawg.ca/2010/03/23/defining-art-in-the-commons-the-case-of-building-owners-and-graffiti-in-edmonton/#comment-86436 Chad Conrad Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:15:11 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2010/03/23/defining-art-in-the-commons-the-case-of-building-owners-and-graffiti-in-edmonton/#comment-86436 Carmen, Thanks for this piece. While I too have issues with the power of the state to issue such orders against the will of the property owner, isn't it a bit of a stretch to call the markings on this particular building art, especially compared with Banksy's work? But then I guess that's the problem. Who is to judge and what is the standard? Carmen,

Thanks for this piece.

While I too have issues with the power of the state to issue such orders against the will of the property owner, isn’t it a bit of a stretch to call the markings on this particular building art, especially compared with Banksy’s work? But then I guess that’s the problem. Who is to judge and what is the standard?

]]>