Just found your site – looks really interesting, I look forward to reading more….

I;ve been writing about street art (and other kinds of art/images) for some time, at my blog Images to Live By (http://imagestoliveby.wordpress.com/) and in academic articles too… It’d be great to share some ideas sometime.

thanks!

In fact, it’s much simpler than this. The people who criticize him are “street artists” who actually understand what’s at stake in the practice, which is opposed to “branding” — not because they are anti-capitalists or leftists, but because they are street artists. I’ve made this argument before, but when the basic motivation for one’s “street art” flows from commercial need then the real significance of the “art” is “buy this”. Buy Vespa. We’re hip, we’re street, so buy Vespa. The “art” means the same thing no matter where it shows up — in your living room, at a bus stop, on a stone wall in rural China. That is to say, its commercial meaning does not depend on its use of the street. It doesn’t use the street in any significant way, so it isn’t street art. It’s just an ad disguised as street art. Its use of the street is mere rhetoric — a way of making the advertisement look cool or edgy. Even Dick Cheney or John D. Rockefeller can accept that argument.

You can make money as a street artist — many street artists do. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. But many do so without compromising their artistic integrity. Compromising your art to make money is the definition of selling out.

(By the way, it’s interesting that Shepard Fairey also uses the phrases “blurring the lines” and “examining the grey areas” when asked about this same issue.)