Skip to content

Doyle Rules

March 23, 2009

pict0060

This is hands down the best piece I have seen in Chicago over the last year and a half at least.  I think that the debate about whether or not graffiti is art is pretty much over after seeing something like this.  I’m not really going to say where it is, since it maybe replaced by a brown smudge thanks to Mayor Daley graffiti removal team.  It’s unarguable that there’s a difference between a gangs throw-up and something like this.  In England they are training graffiti removal crews to recognize Banksy’s pieces around the country.  What’s the good in spraying an ugly brown smudge over a colorful burner like this?  For instance, at the juncture of the Red and Brown Lines, in the heart of Wrigleyville just North of Belmont, there’s an apartment on the North side and an apartment on the South side of the street.  On the North apartment, there’s a two-story wall painting for a certain casino in Milwaukee and on the South apartment there’s a wall that has been bombed almost weekly.  It’s the perfect instance of some graffiti writers thought and basis for writing: is it more offensive to be constantly advertised at, in this case promoting a vice even, and does that allow, or even require, taking back space for non-corporate thought.

Thanks Brain and Nspyr for this splash of color in our community!

pict00621

Advertisements
5 Comments leave one →
  1. Lisa permalink
    June 3, 2009 8:51 am

    This looks like signatures from my 1974 Naperville Central High School yearbook. Surely this is not the best that Chicago “art” can offer…

  2. thebram31 permalink*
    June 3, 2009 10:55 am

    You had signatures in your yearbook that were six feet high, done in 9 plus colors? Wow. I’m especially impressed that your yearbook sigs were done three decades before the emergence of “bubble-type” lettering.

    The whole point of this post was that narrow definitions of what art is, especially concerning graffiti, are completely out-moded and irrelevant. In my opinion, this is in fact the best graffiti art piece that I have seen in the city in a year at least. I’m guessing that Lisa might be more comfortable with something far more conventional, like everyone’s favorite, the vanilla masterpiece “American Gothic.” Or check out the ArtSlant: Chicago gallery hop for this week: Tony Fitzpatrick, Lalla Essaydi and Italian Futurism are all on view around town.

    If you don’t understand graffiti art that’s one thing, but when confronted with art you don’t immediately understand, learn about it, ask about it, don’t write it off and fortify yourself within your own ignorance.

  3. john permalink
    June 20, 2009 5:19 pm

    the point of the post is taken, but nonetheless, that throw up is nothing special. I know we don’t see much that is these days because of the graffiti blasters, but lets be honest, its a decent throw up but thats about it. Better than brown, yes. Don’t try and act like that guy doesnt understand the art because he recognizes a wack piece when he sees one. Yes it is ok to have an opinion of an artists work.

  4. thebram31 permalink*
    June 21, 2009 9:58 am

    You think it’s nothing special, I think it was a great dash of color on my commute. I liked this bubble piece more than some of the Chicago Wild Style work that’s up right now, because of its color, clarity and placement. I think that it was hands down the best piece I have seen in a year, you think it’s decent but not the best. Honestly if there were burners like this in another part of town I would travel there to check it out. . . We have different opinions, that’s fine, I agree it IS ok to have an opinion of an artists work, if I didn’t agree on that I wouldn’t have a job or this blog. What you did (unlike Lisa) is offer up an opinion and open a conversation.

    I assume “that guy” you are referring to is “Lisa.” Lisa wasn’t recognizing a wack piece, if so my response would have been different. And I truly doubt that “Lisa” really has some understanding of street art and/or graffiti. Again if the comment was more like “I think that the Chicago version of Wild Style lettering is more interesting than bubble” then my response would have been different. But the point of Lisa’s comment was condescending and paternalistic with not even a hint of interest in the art, even using quotations to bracket ‘art,’ as if this was something to hold at arm’s length, between one’s thumb and forefinger. Not to mention the derisive comparison between yearbook signatures and this artwork.

    As anyone can tell by my response to “Lisa”, I was more irritated by this close-minded, conversation-ending comment than anything else. As it says on the “About CAB” in the second sentence, I started this blog to begin conversations, not to stop or end them. I welcome opinions of all kinds, but if you post some bullshit like that I’m going to respond to it.

Trackbacks

  1. Doyle Done « The Chicago Art Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: