Recently, Snyder got a letter from the city of Encinitas saying it didn't like his decorating the local sculpture of Vincent Van Gogh on the artist's birthday***thanks*** (the piece was brilliant and can be seen HERE).
But Snyder stands by his work, and, he has volunteered a 'rubrik' by which street art can be treated. To distinguish between vandalism and art, and to gauge that piece's role in the community, some sort of system for evaluating street art needs to be put in place. Snyder has proposed just such a system, and he calls it 'The Sanctioned Street Art Rubrik'.
We think that this is a great system, and it would be great to see communities adopting guidelines like this.
Read Snyder's proposal below, and see for yourself.
1. Aesthetic Artistry - The level of skill in the chosen street art medium. To earn a high score, the piece must exhibit dedication to detail, invested time and thought, mastering of tools and materials and attention to composition and color.
2. Community Acceptance – The acceptance by those who live and visit the area the piece of art is placed in. A high score will only be achieved if the community approves of the art and discloses pleasure in seeing it each day. This is measured through a number of media outlet discussions including newspaper, news television, websites, blogs and on site interviews.
3. Level of Offensiveness – The amount of offended local and visiting members of the community. This includes any negative reaction stemming from the piece’s content. It is scored with all moral, religious, racial, political and social economical beliefs in mind.
4. Relevance to Location – The natural blending of the piece of art into the environment. This includes visually as well as conceptually. A high score will result in a natural fit to the eye and a message that pertains to the feel of the community.
5. Public Safety – The potential harm or level of distraction added to the community due to the piece of art. This includes unsafe installation, potential traffic interference due to material surface or glare, traffic congestion due to onlookers and possible collapsing of the piece. Weather conditions common in the area are also considered.
6. Cost of Removal – The cost incurred by the property owner or city due to the removal of a sub score piece of street art. This includes manpower and potential repair to the surface or environment that the art is place on/in. A high score in this category will result in a piece with easy removal. A low score may be increased with an artist agreement to personally remove art or pay for the removal if deemed vandalism.
You can read more about Snyder's letter from the city, his response, and the context over at Carlsbad Crawl.
Who's the arbiter? These rubrics are subjective.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens to the definition of vandalism when it is supported by the community? What if the buffing of a piece creates a public outcry? When should a piece be extracted from the term "vandalism" and sanctioned.
ReplyDeleteThis rubric was not created to judge or censor any artist's work. It is not a persuasive guideline when creating. The streets should always be used as a canvas to display ideas of all levels, subject matter and intent.
It was created to educate and persuade city council members before buffing high profile community supported street pieces.
Click the below link to see an analysis of a 'The Surfing Madonna'. Against the public's suport of the piece, it was removed:
http://carlsbadcrawl.com/?p=7052
-Snyder
interesting.
ReplyDeleteInterested to see if this will start to be considered in the world of LA Street art. Definitely something one could be mindful of when creating a piece, if one is motivated by these (guideposts?).
If this were adopted, it would certainly raise the bar and challenge artists to create something within the confines of the point system. Who would be judging though?
I've gotta agree with anonymous #1; this is a novel idea that won't stick. Some people might consider a piece of art to be aesthetically pleasing and/or complimentary to the environment while others deem that same piece offensive. Consider Blu's mural at MOCA. And I'm not sure how the streets can "be used as a canvas to display ideas of all levels" if offensiveness is a rubric in the first place. Sometimes, street art SHOULD offend, challenge ideals, and open minds. Do you think no one was offended when JR posted Israeli faces on the homes of Palestinians? Offensive art can (and often does) create widespread, affective discourse.
ReplyDeleteI guess the big questions are: who decides what's tasteful, aesthetically pleasing, safe, and acceptably inoffensive for the community? How can anyone objectively reach that conclusion? What happens when the community disagrees with that person/group's opinion? Who measures community acceptance and maintains these standards for each piece? Who pays those people for their time? And which graf bombers are going to respect any of this when they're out illegally painting, anyway?
love it! i hope it takes. thank you so much for your efforts in working on this Snyder!!!!! you're a true ambassador to street art!!
ReplyDelete-teacher
MKR,
ReplyDeleteThis rubric is a tough sell. Maybe easier to council members than to artists. To tell you the truth, I am not completely sold on putting a grade or score on creativity and personal expression, but in many situations where street art enjoyed by the community on all levels is buffed because it falls under the generic category of "vandalism", I feel a grading system, though potentially impossible to perfect, is necessary. If anything, it might allow pieces to take their natural ephemeral course rather than falling victim to a premature buffing.
This rubric attempts to put a score on preference. How can you grade the community's reaction through a 10 point 6 category grading system when a community is made of many different minds and interests? You really can't, but you can develop an overall consensus through community forums such as gatherings and online dialogue such as this.
Your questions are all valid and ones I have also debated. A public forum unrestricted, unbiased and unfiltered would be ideal. Maybe a website, a public hearing...? An objective conclusion to what is and is not offensive would have to come through an overall public reaction ultimately resulting in a score for that category. Like many street artists who spend late nights and sneak designs in at work and rarely see any financial rewards, I imagine some would not have a problem donating time for the sake of preserving art in the streets. As for the graf bombers, they would continue getting up like any streets artist, illegally, but with a chance of their labors of love being recognized as aesthetically pleasing, a positive addition to the community and ultimately sanctioned by the law.
The underlying idea of the rubric is not to grade art, but to bring attention to the fact that we are experiencing a current day art movement. One which not only is challenging the traditional ways of exhibiting art, but is also challenging the traditional definition of vandalism.
Thanks for your thoughtful concerns and questions!
-Snyder
this whole idea is offensive to me, street art doesnt need rules.
ReplyDelete#1- artistry?- some things need to be crude to get the point across, or maybe, making 400 posters in a bedroom on a non custodial weekend, the artist wants to saturate his target and doesnt have the cash to make em all pretty, and not everyone has a studio and an unlimited budget.
#2- community acceptance? - hahaha, right. your doodle series may capture the hearts of some, but alot of art isnt made to please the masses, most work is made to get in your head, hijack your thoughts and yeah, maybe even piss you off. this is why its on the street is it not? you are targeting people who in any other circumstance would never look at our shit.
#3 level of offensiveness - see above, but also, why cant art offend>???? most of the radical work in the world is offensive to at least some people.
#4 relevance to location - nope. sure, good placement goes a long way, but if there is a highly visible spot that can get hit, it will, and should... half the stuff in the street has shitty placement depending on who you ask, and joe public could care less, its all vandalism to him.
5- public safety - obviously tripping hazards are abound, but glare? c'mon, and being distracting???? have you seen the giant billboards on the freeways? how about the LED jumbotrons? that shit is distracting, and to be honest I am more concerned about betty bimbo on her cell phone speeding in her BMW than i am about someone being distracted by seeing something pasted on the street.
6- cost of removal - meh, who cares, if anyone really cared about the cost of removal they wouldnt be out vandalizing other peoples shit, simple.
Those are just my thoughts, many may and probably will differ. To me it looks like you want to cut the balls off street art. If this code were inforced, all we would see is crap that looks like coloring book pages, technically good, SAFE, non-offensive pieces with no POWER or real message behind them. not to mention everyone and their mom would be out pasting shit and adding artifacts to public statues. people dont like rules man, we go to work and people tell us what we can and cant do, we drive in our cars and we are told how fast we cant go, we go to the bank and are told how much money we dont have, then you come up with a ruberic? If im alone here, so be it, but I post in the streets because I can put whatever I want-wherever i want, i dont have to listen to anyones rules, there is no voice in my head dividing me or persuading me to change what my gut feeling tells me to do, it is pure and raw, and contrary to what some people seem to think- its straight up vandalism at its core, unless you have a pre existing agreement with the property owner- it is vandalism and thats that, no matter how many witty quotes or fancy imagery, it is what it is.
Nothing on you personally dude, but this just seems to fly right in the face of the very essence of "street art".
HELPDESK
HELPDESK,
ReplyDeleteCutting of the balls of street are would be saying the only street art should be permission pieces. This rubric encourages getting up in any way, legal or not, with the incentive that a piece might be sanctioned.
You have to realize that there are very often pieces that are buffed against the will of property owners, artists, the community and even the city officials because it falls into the outdated category of vandalism. Why not unbind the hands of those making the decisions. Why not give the community and artists a say in the matter?
People, street artist specifically, don't like rules. I can obviously relate. This rubric would not be changing anything. Artists would continue to put up their work and pieces would get buffed, capped or respected. Taggers would continue to tag, graffers would continue to graf and pasters would continue to paste. The only difference is that the community would have a structured reasoning to attack council members with. If we were to fight for the sanctioning of a piece, we would most likely, not always, but usually be dealing with black and white, cut-dry council members whose knowledge of contemporary art and art history extends as far as the Mona Lisa and a crazy guy who cut off his ear. Again, the only change would be that we would have ammo in the form of a quantitative data... artistic analysis is hard for them to grasp, but they get numbers.
This rubric is in no way stating that street art pieces should only come from resourceful artists or that the only good art is that which is not offensive. I am an advocate of all forms of art, good, bad, offensive, cheerful and rude. You are right that all art isn't made to please the masses. I dig art that provokes an analysis and stimulates emotion. A crude, ugly and offensive piece makes the viewer think and might boil them with anger...
A piece sanctioned for its community acceptance is just as successful as a piece that offends, disgusts and causes sorrow. It's not the emotion, it's the level of emotion! I enjoy offending as mush as any artist:
http://carlsbadcrawl.com/?p=1124
The essence of street art in my book is to provoke a thought and emotion in the public. It is to connect minds and help develop and artistic culture. A sanctioned piece and a positive addition to the community means that piece will be touching that many more minds!
Just like a successful piece of offensive art, you invested time and emotion into this rubric. I dig!
I see your work around and appreciate it!
-Snyder
on that note, i see what you are goin for, and thats cool. But i just cant see it ever being a feasable reality. there is no way to collect all the data, or any way to get it inacted. and the city councel and other politicians are busy lining theor pockets and concocting bro-deals to screw the next guy, and I doubt they would even hear out this idea. unless of course they can tax it... if there were a way they could make a dollar on it, it would be game on. Maybe take this plan and tweek it a little, and setup a way for the business owners to network with the artists, and that way they can contact an artist and maybe work a deal to get a piece they like installed. document the install and if on the off chance it gets buffed, you have documentation and can go after whatever entity it was that buffed it.
ReplyDeleteHELPDESK.
Snyder -
ReplyDeleteThanks for your effort in putting together a rubric. Even though it is one that I disagree with.
In marketing a conceptual societal change such as street art to the community aka "the canvas" - you will find, the best results will always be business owners who embrace street art themselves. Word of mouth is a powerful drug.
In my opinion - the presentation of a rubric will only catalyze more buffing. Why? Solely because you have give them criteria to do so.
"This is worthy..." "This is not..." But it is also criteria (linear) that is being placed upon creativity (fluid). You give three people that rubric, and show them three pieces of street art - you are going to have different perceptions of if that piece fits. There truly is no way - NO WAY - of doing an accurate summation of what is vandalism and art. Here's the spectrum.
Take a beautiful piece by French Artist C215. His work is sublimely artistic...seemingly meets ALL the criterium of your rubric, but he the piece he did was on someones private property - and guess what...they didn't like it. They are the curators - boom vandalism and buffed.
Other side of the spectrum. You have yet another MS13 tag. Just a raw display of vandalism and gang tagging. Doesn't fit the criterium of the rubric. Obviously vandalism. But at 5:30 when the sun is setting - there is a homeless man sitting in front of the tagging, smiling - the click of the camera causes a remarkable black and white photograph. The tag was a part of that photograph and contributed to the piece. Didn't fit the criterium - but is part of a larger creative piece.
I personally need all of it. I need the buff marks. I need the ominous gang tagging. I need the political pieces. I need the installation pieces. I need the textured layers of years of wheatpasting on electrical boxes. I don't want a rubric that gives people a notion of what should be in my life and what shouldn't.
I am a creator and I need it all.
Again - thanks for the time and the effort - and I love a lot of the pieces you create...both on the street and off. I just don't like this.
As for me - I just create...and if the piece stays...it stays...if it doesn't...I got what I needed out of it...an experience.
Peace.
THEFL,
ReplyDeleteA negative result of the rubric might be a more aggressive buffing campaign by city workers. That would not be desirable and are you are indeed right!
Unfortunately many pieces are already being buffed. During my last trip to LA I noticed numerous blank and freshly buffed boxes as well as walls which previously housed many long lasting pieces, again buffed.
Your examples of C215 and MS13 are valid. In the case of the business owner, the rubric could be used to persuade them to keep it. Many business owners, as well as city officials, are unaware of the significance of a piece, both historically and aesthetically.
For example, SABER's LA River piece- aesthetically amazing, historically valid, non offensive, not a danger to the public's safety, masterful in terms of the given location and an obvious acceptance at the community at large.
This would have been a perfect scenario to approach the city with community support, as well as a well organized rubric quantitatively justifying the sanctioning of the piece.
I understand your points, and side with them as an artist, but I also am a passionate art historian who feels important pieces in art history should be fought for. The rubric is just a way to do it on the terms of those with the final say.
I scoped you art and dig your hand cut stencils!
-Snyder
And thanks for all of your detailed replies - in that - you will end up creating a rubric that satiates and hones in on exactly what you are tying to accomplish. Hats off to you for the effort - as no one else is doing it.
ReplyDelete- THEFL
Dude, are you serious? No way...get out of here with this shit. Fuck rules.
ReplyDeleteWow... What a commentary! You guys really show us that alot of you out there have amazing inteligence, as well as talent! Fight for your right!
ReplyDeletethis might be good or bad - props for thinking outside the box - I support this.
ReplyDeleteSMEAR,
ReplyDeleteA common misconception of this rubric is that it imposes rules on the act of creating and/or the act of putting art in the streets.
The difference between a rubric and a rulebook is that a rubric is a tool which helps organize information of a given piece of art into a presentable package- in this case, well after it has been created and installed in the streets.
A rulebook would impose limits and restrictions on the act of creating and/or the act of placing art in the streets. Obviously I am not a supporter of rules or a rulebook.
http://carlsbadcrawl.com/?p=7686
I find something beautiful in the life of art in the streets. I prefer the ephemeral course of a piece, the peeling paint, the fading color, the rust. This rubric would allow some, not all, but at least some pieces to live that natural course rather than fall victim to a blanket of gray.
Your work is new to me and I have only seen your canvases a handful of times, but the ones I have seen show influences from Basquiat, de Kooning and Rauschenberg... all which are some of my all time favorite painters. I dig!
-Snyder