Comments on: Street Artists’ Art – Gasp – Vandalized!

By: 5teve

5teve — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:10:38 +0000

@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.

By: Danny

Danny — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:54:00 +0000

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

By: violet

violet — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:38:59 +0000

@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.

By: Auf Achse

Auf Achse — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:21:56 +0000

“No respect for the owner of the wall”

As if most “street artists” do.

By: Gorf

Gorf — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:35:36 +0000

“…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 .

By: Kiki

Kiki — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:46:47 +0000

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.

By: Neatoramawontsendmeapassword

Neatoramawontsendmeapassword — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:24:50 +0000

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.

By: ted

ted — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:44:13 +0000

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.

By: Mario

Mario — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:38:37 +0000

“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.

By: MJ

MJ — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:37:46 +0000

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’)

By: dan.rosol

dan.rosol — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:16:57 +0000

it is getting too commercial… right on..

By: DOJ

DOJ — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:10:52 +0000

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

By: violet

violet — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:56:31 +0000

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