Art vs Vandalism

There’s a pretty thin line between art and vandalism. I was walking under the bridge at Sheppard and Leslie. You know the painting on the bridge? It’s sort of like a mural and really pretty. However, if you walk down a street and you see the same thing done in spray paints on, say, the side of a building, would you approve of it? Likely not. You would classify it as vandalism, as tagging, as defacing a building.

I had a talk with a friend recently about tagging and graffiti. It so happens that many people misunderstand the meaning of graffiti. Graffiti is an art form using spray paints on cement faces or such places. People know that. What many do not know is that graffiti is legal. Graffiti artists respect public property and have their “canvases” specially cleared and prepared for them. They’re requested and, in many cases, paid for their art. They also do not like taggers, which are the people how spray paint on buildings without permission, unlawfully. They also speak out against these people. Although the art taggers and graffiti artists do are exactly the same, one is lawful and one is not. It is unlawful when people do not want it to happen.

Let’s consider this scenario: you walk out of your house one morning and notice, with surprise, that your house has been drawn on. Technically, that act was illegal. The artist did not have your consent and should not have defaced your home. But you look closer at the drawing and you decide it’s rather beautiful. You like it. You decide not to cover it up or report it, because you enjoy it. And you would call it art. But what if you thought the drawing was hideous? You would call it vandalism, not art, and report it.

Art these days is about pushing boundaries. If something is received favourably, it’s art. If no one likes it, or it’s only beautiful in the eyes of the creator, it’s vandalism. It’s a rather thin line. A lot of art now is controversial to get attention, whether good or bad. Controversial art that evokes deep thinking is admitted into museums. Controversial art that is too controversial is barred or banned from museums.

Do you see my point? Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. It’s a very gray issue. What is art? What is vandalism? What is talent?

I’ve seen “abstract art” where people just draw shapes, or worse, fling paint at a canvas. Is it art? Are the “artists” talented?

Noticed: Here In You Arms

This is a stupid song. Has anyone else realised? When I first heard the beginning of it, I laughed. My radio station likes to make fun out of people or songs or events by doing parodies and the like. I thought they were trying to make a stupid song…I mean, listen to the lyrics: “I like where we are. When we drive in your car.” Uhhhhh. That’s the most predictable rhyme ever. However, as I kept listening, I eventually figured out it as not a joke, and that what I was listening to was actually quite a popular song. Wow.
“Here In Your Arms” is completely devoid of musical talent. The lyrics are awful, the melody repeats fifty times and the range is tiny. The “singer” doesn’t do anything except for sing three consecutive notes, and then start wailing during the chorus. And even in the chorus where he is wailing in a high-pitched voice, it’s digitised. Why do you think it’s digitised? To hide the fact that he can’t even wail in tune. I mean, talented people can sing high. Average people can pretend to sing high by wailing. And he can’t even do that, so it’s digitised to hide it.
It’s a stupid song. Everything is poor: the lyrics, the melody, and the singing. If you’re going to try and make money, please don’t do something like this. It’s just humiliating.