Urban Canvas Paris
william mccommon | July 18th, 2012An Urban Canvas
So this is my first post since I began a once in a lifetime francophone journey this summer that will ultimately take the better part of a year to complete. I have been in Paris for 5 weeks now and have been acclimating myself to a familiar but ultimately unique understanding of the role and function of the city and the interactions of its inhabitants. My first thoughts: art on the urban canvas.
One small note: in an effort to convey the omnipresence of the street art, graffiti, and tags within Paris all the following pictures within the body of the text (with the exception of the above cover image by Nick Walker) were taken during a single 1.5 hour walk from Plaçe Bastille to the Belleville metro and represent a small portion of the works that I found interesting during my walk (and seem to include old friends such as Invader, Nick Walker and Shepard Fairey).
Street art (or graffiti or tags) is ever-present in Paris. Every corner, every street, every building even every sidewalk carries with it a mark from an anonymous (or sometimes even famous) artist/hooligan. Is this vandalism and defacement of private property or public art within the framework of an anonymous stone and glass maze?
Anyone who has taken a class from Professor Allen has walked away with a very different understanding of the role of the street in the public realm- the street begins to take on an almost sacred role as the one true public space in a city.
The street then is the basis of participatory democracy – protest and marches – celebrations and gatherings, and the theatre of the populace. If the street is the civic thread of the city, then where can the true lines be drawn between the private and purchased spaces of the businesses and residences and the public street?
In this case I don’t personally think the legal definitions are appropriate. The street, the sidewalk, the facades, the urban canyon of facades all create the corridor of civic life.
Where then is the fault in its decoration? Street art seems to be one of the few bold moves that an individual can make to impact or improve the public space- even if it is only done in ephemeral means. Street art is an opportunity to bring to the public ideas and thoughts seemingly too radical or unrefined for the museums and galleries to light as well as a step to further the aesthetic identity of a city in a way that for (probably) too long has been taken from the average person and given to the urbanist or architect.
True street art can be a reading of the popular spirit or of a community, or it can be simply a gesture of good will towards the anonymous corners of the city. It can be bold in a way few arts are still willing to be or it can be as simple and plebian as aesthetics and cultural references can be.
But with any praise of street art comes the knowledge that all is not art, all may not be for the common pleasure. How then can the line be drawn between the good, the bad, and the ugly? Can the tags of the city be dismissed as vandalous scribbles when they carry with them the same conceptual framework of the urban billboard- the citywide roll call of identities not able to be represented concretely but merely on the raw concrete itself?
The truth is, I don’t know. I know my preferences, but I do not know how to begin to parse the urban marks and urban art of Paris and the world. I do know however, that at the end of the day, I do appreciate the dismissal of the city as some dead collection of plans and legal papers of the high and the new understanding of the city as a permanent framework of the ephemeral marks of the populace and its desires.
[ graffiti, Paris, street art, urban design ]
this is a fantastic collection of visual artifacts in a city so obsessed with is historical neo-baroque presentation of itself to itself and the world. i wonder if perhaps the younger generation of denizens is perhaps in a divergent relationship to the city of stagnated architecture for the past 400 years.
graffiti becomes the currency of colour in gray cities like berlin. perhaps the neutral palette of parisan stone is an outdated colour of imperial power. the graffiti therefore represents not only a rebellion of current political figures, but towards the history of the city itself.
personal predilections to graffiti aside, i wonder if it stands unanimous that a tastefully done and carefully considered piece of graffiti is superior to the white washing of official city officers.
the city of atlanta has lost some of its most stunning works of art to the bourgeoisie sensibilities of graffiti. is another paradigm of thinking possible? could graffiti be a more self-organizing and self-sustaining system of thinking?
would it be possible in a city like atlanta or paris to allow the evolution of a graffiti collective, where artists are constantly vying for the attention of their peers by creating successively more complicated and more artistic works of art?
the tags of gangs replaced by the works of art of the collective.
I think you might be too harsh on Paris. Yes, the buildings of downtown have not changed significantly since Haussmann. But I wouldn’t write off the city because of that. The interoiors and the life on the street have not stopped evolving since the days of Rome. I really do think Paris does tolerate the art well, tags can be removed within hours, but the final picture on the post has been up without harm for months and months. Invaders stay up for years I believe. I wouldnt say at all Paris is a dead city or a grey- its a lively city with old bones. I think every generation has added something significant to the urban landscape- Paris did not escape postmodernism or modernism in the least- and today the are near the Peripherique is expanding with “green architecture” and blobitecture. It might be more subtle, but I wouldn’t write off Paris.
p-diddy: c’mon man! jeeze. what did paris ever do to you? “stagnated architecture for the last 400 years?” Woah! the tour eiffel doesn’t count for anything? the world’s exhibition of 1889 didn’t cause a generation of emasculated american architects to scramble to compete?
graffiti in atlanta seems just right relative to the underwhelming art scene with overwhelming corporate support, which looks for liberation from having no real identity. graffiti in paris seems kitch- trying to revitalize the artistic experimentation of the 1920′s and the revolutionary spirit of the 1960′s, both 300 years past 400 years from now. either way, now that bansky has been exhibited in museums, grafitti’s moment has passes along with its lack of resistance to commodification.
you do mention interestingly that paris is reaching for something. a rebellion? what would a 1920′s or 1960′s spirit in paris look like today?
william, glad to find this article; as you can see, it is the petri dish of an interesting discussion.
Perhaps this is off topic, but I don’t know why the increasing gallery presence of these artists is so often considered a “death blow” to their art. I think Banksy has his aesthetics, symbolism, and cultural relevancy more solidly under him than most of the “recent acquisitions” I’ve seen floating around modern art museums. I don’t think artist/graphic designer Spepard Fairey should be penalized for creating an incredibly effective piece of graphic design for a politician. Maybe I’m just defensive because my favorite of these artists is perhaps the least “high-art.” Perhaps Invader is a commentary on the pixel, the defining unit of our generation. Perhaps it is an homage to the beautiful minimalism and abstraction of old 8bit pixel art, and the tension of this art showing up in the real world. Perhaps it is simple cultural nostalgia and an enjoyment of color. Or maybe its all in the name of fulfilling a pun (his full name is Space Invader). Just because these artists started on the street shouldn’t undermine them or elevate them in my opinion. Monet started as that creepy man in the park looking around and drawing. Picasso started as that drunk guy in the absinthe bar. Why is an artist’s biography so relevant to the judgement of art?
I think the truly interesting thing about Parisian street art is that it is not all Parisians. Paris is a global gallery of artists. Of the 2 I just mentioned, and of the 3 I mentioned by name in the article, only Invader is from Paris. Paris makes http://www.streetartnews.net and other websites almost once a week with traveling artists from around the world. It really is fascinating to see people make seeming pilgrimages to the city.
Your comments about Atlanta are really interesting. I truly don’t know as much as I should about Atl Street Art (other than pieces found on or sponsored by the Beltline). Can you say more about what you think that narrative is?