Message, manner and art

I went to an exhibition about Street Art recently in Coventry which was, to my surprise, quite interesting. In addition, the art gallery included a museum incorporating some pieces from the 18^th century to now. 

The street art exhibition was focusing on artists such as Banksy (arguably the most famous of them), Miss Tick, Sickboy or Pure Evil. These pseudonyms already manifest a statement about the authors and their wish to remain anonymous. The wishes of some artists to remain absolutely anonymous like Banksy might reveal some form of existentialism thought about just being an average person in the world. This practice is normal considering the nature of their works and its illegality. Indeed, graffiti is their main modus-operandi (but not the only one) and can be found, as it name implies, anywhere in a city. This is one of the main characteristic of street art and it reflects the desire of the authors to use the public space so they can reach the public and thus diffuse their designs or ideas. 

This idea of using the street as a tool also reflect the fact that they feel they cannot be seen in regular art galleries, mainly due to the elitism present there, and also probably for financial and time management reason. This has given way to the development of an underground culture which has been appealing to many. A lot of these graffiti bring with them a political message often encapsulated with some dark humour. They often appear to be criticising governments, traditions and denounce the unfairness of the world. Indeed, the use of opposite symbols in the same work or their falsifications is a recurrent technique leading to a caricatured scene.

I find the dark humour, facetiousness and creativity of these artists funny and interesting. Yet, seeing these works in an art gallery is making feel uneasy about the motives of displaying these already public works in a different place. Is this art a way for them to cry out their feeling of unjustice? Is this wish to remain anonymous genuine or do they just want to be famous in another way? Or is their seemingly opposition to traditions and government a genuine critique of their time or a childish idealist caprice? These artists probably do not care about how people judge them. I guess that my main bite against them is more born out of a weariness of art or rather what is called art and the whole elitism behind it. In particular contemporary art and its interpretation which I believe  is quite grotesque and a bad satire of the art world (especially when it comes to price).

Thus, when I read and look at street art, which is supposed to be radically opposed to capitalism and by proxy to contemporary art, how it is used, displayed and talked about in general; I cannot help but think about contemporary art and that, although street art tries to be different in its approach and in its aspiration, people still long for popularity and a desire to be different which in the end make them very similar. I, for one, could just appreciate art whether it be street art, contemporary or anything else just for the aesthetic aspect of the works and would gladly ignore any critical messages conveyed in most of them. I do not condemn the fact that art can be used to convey a message but rather, the manner in which it is done and its genuineness.

-Croissant