![]() Is it essential to invite the artist to take part in the heritage process? One must look at the field of Muralism, mainly in the USA, to find more innovative and frequent restoration procedures. This encourage today to have a different perspective than that of the material history of the work with the creative process, the components used and the effects of environment parameters and ultimately, of time (Colombini, 2017).ĥ The traditional methods of conservation are questioned which must intervene and what modifications in relation to the original one can be accepted? (Beerkens, 2005). AlterationsĤ If Graffiti question the artistic approach of the artist and the context of their creation, it also poses those of alteration mechanisms, sometimes irreversible, these colors, which are significant from the point of view of heritage conservation. Graffiti writers would not necessarely comply with this rule as their preferences for brands are more related to habits, opportunities and word of mouth, along with, plastic qualities and not for resistance properties. Regarding paint materials, so many spray paint brands are available to the general public in hardware stores. The issue is visibility and notoriety, by the number, size and/or the choice of venue. ![]() For most “writers”, Graffiti is not an act thought out on the basis of a future conservation. The patrimonialization of graffiti and, to a large extent, of Street Art is an essential point, because graffiti writers or street art practitioners often see institutions as "looters" who, come to preserve cultural acts that other public institutions have condemned (Omodeo, 2016).ģ Heritage is primarily a process which, in principle, prevents any destruction or voluntary surrender of an artwork, which are a corollary of creation and its limitation of copyright in time. The growing interest leads to different perceptions probably with greater attention to the act of "heritage" at the expense of the act of protest. © Laura Levine/Corbis The problem of temporalityĢ Similarly, the notion of temporality, by dissociating conservation and transmission must be considered. ![]() A question therefore arises: how can the aesthetic and pictorial aspects of these acts of creation be considered as acts of vandalism? ( Bengsten, 2016). For instance, removing graffiti or restricting the practice of graffiti from the public space has been a controversial issue for artists and authorities. However, it is often seen as illicit production and vandalism asset. Facing a worldwide plethoric production, the assumption that Graffiti is a positive urban art form raises some paradoxical questions regarding ephemerality and “visual pollution” with a growing art market demand. Contemporary graffiti is also described by its controversial issues between social, style and aesthetic forms along with vandalism aspects. Modes of expression are mainly related to visibility, notoriety, choice of venue, transgression, and are often a mean to react and protest while remaining anonymous, by illegally introducing messages in the public space. ![]() 1 Graffiti is found in many societies with different cultural contexts and has become a witness and an ethnographic source of information on urban art development (Waclawek, 2011). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |