Alexandra K. Duncan’s main purpose for writing this essay is to explain why placing graffiti in museums\/galleries takes away from the legitimacy of the art, for context of a piece fundamentally plays a huge part in its overall message. Duncan primarily focuses on a former graffiti artist Zevs, whose pieces are very confrontational. For Duncan, placing Zevs’s art in a gallery context makes the confrontation Zevs is trying to create “artificially constructed (133).<\/p>\n
I agree with Duncan for the most part; I do think that context does play a huge role in art, especially graffiti. Graffiti by its own nature relies heavily on context. On page 135 she uses tagging as an essential aspect of graffiti that is lost when it is placed in a gallery setting. I think it’s important to note that there have been distinctions made between street artists and taggers\/writers; Zevs is probably considered more of a street artist than a tagger, and the art he puts into galleries most likely doesn’t create the social relations among taggers\/writers that happens when graffiti is put on the streets. However, Zevs’s confrontational art is definitely more effective on the streets because it \u00a0is more of a direct form of protest.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Alexandra K. Duncan’s main purpose for writing this essay is to explain why placing graffiti in museums\/galleries takes away from the legitimacy of the art, for context of a piece fundamentally plays a huge part in its overall message. Duncan primarily focuses on a former graffiti artist Zevs, whose pieces are very confrontational. For Duncan, … <\/p>\n