In the West, when we see objects made in African, Oceanic, Native American, or Asian cultures in museums, we see them as works of art. Why is this problematic? How were many of these objects originally “used”? How much does context have to do with how an “artwork” is “viewed?” Is graffiti any different? Explain.
When we look at these "works of art" in muesems, we do not see them for what they really are. The are religious aspects, family heirlooms, sometimes they are recreations of something evil. And the only thing we see is something that looks cool. Most people do not try to get to know a work of art. Context has a lot to do with how art work is viewed. You could be looking at a beautiful statue, out of context. And not know it represents the devil. Graffiti is not different at all. Graffiti tell a story. It represents something you want people to know, but sometimes people take the message differently.
Some responses I got:
"I agree, that graffiti is something that the artist wants to let people know; I also believe that its just random in some cases, like when the artist is feeling inspired to just draw something crazy with no meaning or message at all."
"I definitely agree that context has a lot to do with how art is viewed. As you said we could look at something as beautiful when really to that culture is was a symbol of something bad and evil. I also agree that graffiti is no different, it tells and story or recreates a past event but because of the stigma attached that its illegal people tend to look down upon it."
"I defintly agree with someone could be looking at a piece of art and if they dont know the context and what it truly means they have no idea why it is truly a piece of art. Just like when people sing along with songs and if they dont know what the song is trying to portray and just like the beat they have no idea what message they are sending or what the artist truly feels."
No comments:
Post a Comment