There is an exciting scandal going on in the street arts scene of Buenos Aires. About a month ago I happened to be giving a private street art tour on a Tuesday, and when we arrived at a bus depot to talk about its decorative, eclectically painted exterior, we stumbled on a group of 4 young guys painting a clear, very foul smelling substance over several street art pieces. One of them being covered was an image that was created as a social commentary during the swine flu craze here in Buenos Aires in August of 2009, by Fede of the collective Run Don't Walk.
I was obviously very curious about what they were doing and they were friendly enough about chatting with me. One of the young guys explained to me that they were painting fiberglass over a selection of paintings done by street artists throughout the city, to protect them from weather and other painters. This is obviously at odds with the natural order of art in the streets and when I asked whey they were doing this, they said that someone had gone around the city taking pictures and had chosen works to be protected. Apparently, these guys didn't know too much more about who had sent the orders, they had been contracted and were there to simply do the work they'd been paid to do. I was baffled and after exchanging contact information with the guy I'd spoken with, I carried on with the tour.
That weekend I received an email from this guy, Juan, apologizing for having lied to me. He said that they were not protecting the pieces but preparing them to be removed. Since he is under contract that specifies strict confidentiality, he is not supposed to disclose any information about the project which is being done by an artist in preparation for a gallery exhibit. He acknowledged the controversial nature of what he was participating in, and offered to meet in person to talk more about it "off the record" with me, as an interested art admirer.
The next time I did the tour I discovered that, sure enough, there were many blanks in the walls we normally discuss. Apparently they paint on this substance, and then some days later can come back to literally peal it off the wall, bringing parts or all of the layer of paint underneath along with it. I imagine one of the scouts for the project must have come on the tour undercover at one point because all the pieces seem to be along our route.
Some of the artists were intrigued, some were annoyed. Some said they just wanted to know when the opening night of the show would be so they could go in, break their pieces and make a statement.
Last week the girl who started the graffiti tour group that I work with, came with me to meet with Juan to see what kind of information we could get out of him. We had our tactics worked out ahead of time because we certainly didn't want him to know that we know all of the artists involved and certainly represent their interests, meaning that whatever we know would be passed along.
Apparently it is a Peruvian artist who has developed a project based on the idea of "vandalizing vandalism". He has already succesfully carried this out in several lLatin American countries, where he has a selection of works of street art removed and then placed in a gallery for an exhibit. In some cases, apparently the artists decided to be part of the project.
With street art becoming more well known and admired as the newest and most exciting counter-culture art movement, this Buenos Aires scandal raises an interesting and important topic of discussion about the treatment of street art. Who does it belong to? Many of the artists here ask permission to paint on housefronts or businesses. But technically, they are public property when they are created on public or abandoned walls. Legally, I suppose their is no controversy with this Peruvian artist's project. With everyone able to come on the graffiti tour, for example, and take pictures to their heart's content, is there really a controversy? This is the point of the art, that it be removed from the exclusive, prestigious, and "other" context of an art gallery or museum, and made accesible; given directly to the people for their free consumption and enjoyment.
However, once these pieces are photographed or removed, and used for someone else's profit without the involvement or consent of the artists, is when the controversy begins. If this artist plans to sell the works, for example, I think the artists have every right to do whatever they can to take back their pieces or to make a statement about their intended purpose. They are not for profit. Here in Buenos Aires they are for the people and for the community. Apparently this artist is not currently in Buenos Aires. He is in Peru or Mexico, sending commands via email. He will show up only in time for the opening night.
Apparently the next stop on his list is Sao Paulo in Brazil. If the artists here have their way, this Peruvian artist's name will be exposed to the tightly-knit street art communities of South America so they will be able to see him coming. Juan has said he would like to invite M (I would prefer not to put other's names here, so I'll refer to my graffiti tour boss as "M") and I to the gallery opening here...
1 comment:
Revealing art in light of the global community. Good writing
Post a Comment