http://mke3.net/weblog/melbourne-graffiti-redux/ Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:57:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 http://mke3.net/weblog/melbourne-graffiti-redux/#comment-32269 oil painting portraits Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:39:26 +0000 http://mke3.net/weblog/melbourne-graffiti-redux/#comment-32269 I’m a lover of abstract art as well as wall art. But don’t accuse me of any bias; I really love everything. Are these artwork done in purpose or are these another vandal-turned-art? I’m a lover of abstract art as well as wall art. But don’t accuse me of any bias; I really love everything. Are these artwork done in purpose or are these another vandal-turned-art?

]]> http://mke3.net/weblog/melbourne-graffiti-redux/#comment-16656 Digital Camera Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:35:28 +0000 http://mke3.net/weblog/melbourne-graffiti-redux/#comment-16656 Basquiat lives! I wonder if the Australians have come to terms with the post-modern revolution, in which everything is art (I love the way the trashcans often become part of the total work), or if they have just grown tired of chasing after the artists? I do find the crossover between the former illegality of graffiti and its growing acceptance fascinating in that it creates a situation where the artist himself tends to fade away (because previously he might have opened himself up to prosecution if he were known), changing conceptions of ownership (something that is also driven by the very public nature of the displays) and what constitutes an “artist” in the first place. If, for instance, a particular work is later added to by someone else, how does this change our conception of what qualifies as an artist? With illegal MP3 file-sharing and wide-spread sampling now established practices, the age of artistic ownership may be coming to an end, which, whether you approve or disapprove, is certainly an interesting development in the history of art. Basquiat lives! I wonder if the Australians have come to terms with the post-modern revolution, in which everything is art (I love the way the trashcans often become part of the total work), or if they have just grown tired of chasing after the artists? I do find the crossover between the former illegality of graffiti and its growing acceptance fascinating in that it creates a situation where the artist himself tends to fade away (because previously he might have opened himself up to prosecution if he were known), changing conceptions of ownership (something that is also driven by the very public nature of the displays) and what constitutes an “artist” in the first place. If, for instance, a particular work is later added to by someone else, how does this change our conception of what qualifies as an artist? With illegal MP3 file-sharing and wide-spread sampling now established practices, the age of artistic ownership may be coming to an end, which, whether you approve or disapprove, is certainly an interesting development in the history of art.

]]>