Street Artists' Art - Gasp - Vandalized!

1. violet
   September 24th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

   I don't know, the Pixadores have a point. Not a great way to go about making it, though.

2. DOJ
   September 24th, 2008 at 4:10 pm

   Tagging in itself is lame. But these ones didn't even use cool fonts...

3. dan.rosol
   September 24th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

   it is getting too commercial... right on..

4. MJ
   September 24th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

   I think if they put more effort into the graffiti it would have proved their point, but they probably didn't want to linger!

   Considering the theme though, wouldn't it just be contributing to the artworks?

   (There's your next shirt there, neatorama. 'Contributing to the artwork')

5. Mario
   September 24th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

   "Pixador" is the one who just write it´s own name (or its gang´s name) around the city, and the target is the difficult of the location (high buildings or locations under police watch). No respect for the owner of the wall, a statue or historical location. In my opinion, just a bunch of ignorants, jealous of others success.

6. ted
   September 24th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

   The one artist's name is Titi Freak.

   It's a shame that they're dragged down while trying to better themselves, I suppose, but the victims of their former "street art" are probably laughing.

7. Neatoramawontsendmeapassword
   September 24th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

   Well, it's certainly not going to encourage any other street artists to do the right thing and display their work in a gallery instead of on the side of a building.

   Vandalism is rude... no matter who's doing it.

8. Kiki
   September 24th, 2008 at 7:46 pm

   Isn't there a distinction between street art and tagging? Tagging (as demonstrated by the Pixadores) is often random, egocentric vandalism, whereas a large percentage of "street art" is meant to enhance the urban landscape.

   The Pixadores are merely an example of anarchy triumphing over art. It's sad.

9. Gorf
   September 24th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

   "...against the 'marketing, institutionalization and domestication of Street Art'."
   I guess none of those Pixadores got "domesticated" by any of their less art-appreciating victims yet .

10. Auf Achse
    September 24th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    "No respect for the owner of the wall"

    As if most "street artists" do.

11. violet
    September 24th, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    @Kiki: Yeah, there is definitely a spectrum, and the artists themselves would probably make the case for a clear distinction. But I think there's overlap, and I think a lot of street artists started out tagging.

    If the vandals were only taggers, their point is lost in that they don't really contribute to whatever street art culture they're making a statement about preserving. However, I think there is a worthy element somewhere in there, and to me it's located around the idea that street art is arguably what it is by virtue of its context both culturally, as a means of expression by those who generally don't have art world connections or gallery gigs, and physically, in that pieces are inexorably linked to the landscape in which they are created and displayed. The point would be (had it been made more effectively) that in taking the art out of the street and commodifying it, you lose a rather important chunk of its original meaning and purpose.

12. Danny
    September 24th, 2008 at 11:54 pm

    These egocentric monkeys don´t even know what the word "marketing" is.

13. 5teve
    September 25th, 2008 at 4:10 am

    @Danny: that's why they're not cursed. what pixadores do in way more interesting than the general random stuff that this street art scene offers. most of the street artists are conventional artists that are triyng to get into art galleries with the new hip thing.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT