From our friend Influenza in Holland:

“i just quickly wanted to come back on that old topic you seemed to open up once more about the limitating label people seem to put on what we do (streetart, post-graffiti art, etc).

always thought, and still think, the best name that covers the majority of the movement we are living in would be “urban intervention art”

the intervention is an essential element that separates the guerrilla-strategy based urban art from lets say - making bronze sculptures for the main square on the invitation of the city council - or making oil paintings of a street scene for a commercial gallery.

at the same time the additive of intervention to the label underlines the aspect of illegal or less legal in our actions, as an essential element in the character of the produced works (in real as well as just as reference).

While we don’t love the phrase “Street Art” we also see the point that Tim is making who wrote us earlier this week:

“...I feel like people are always trying to name a movement (or school of art) and often times it’s mostly to commodify it and associate themselves with it. The magazine Juxtapoz, for instance, refers to the movement as “lowbrow art.” I find this label to be pretty useless, and I also don’t like the fact that when someone, like Juxtapoz, goes about naming a movement, they associate themselves as being the main proponent or ‘father’ of that movement.

I think naming a movement usually benefits the artists who are associated with it in the short run, because if a movement picks up steam, members of the group get exposure just by being part of it (such as the Young British Artists movement of the 90’s or the much-hyped neo-expressionism of the 80’s). However, it also serves to limit the art, I think. I’ve never thought
of the art on wooster as ‘street art,’ ‘urban art,’ or even ‘graffiti,’ it’s just art. The people who want to name an artistic movement are usually writers and critics who need to contextualize something in order to write/think about it.

While thinking about this, I looked to the past and realized this has been going on for a while. The term cubism was first used by a French art critic, not the artists painting in that style. And the leading artists in the cubism movement, Picasso and Braque, didn’t have much use for it.

I know some schools of art are conceptualized and given a self-imposed name, Dada comes to mind, but when people who aren’t the artists themselves (usually art writers) go about labeling a style or school, it’s usually only serves to pigeonhole artists…”

to which Influenza responds….

“i disagree with that other text you put under my writing. think its important artists themselves take responsibility for the context around their art. resisting the (in my opinion patronizing) label “streetart” -in my time streetart was a synonyme for pantomime or chalkdrawing on the pavement - means correcting if in a way that fits most, but at the same time cuts out other expressions. indeed labels limit, but this movement is by now old and mature enough i think to fit the jacket.

and a movement it is.

to which steve adds….

Hello!  I thought that I would toss in my two cents about the name “urban art.”  I completely agree with you that “street art” is not a flattering term for what it is that we do.  Blek le Rat has suggested that it be dubbed as “urban art.”  I feel that this name is also limiting because the word urban implies that the art is confined to a city environment.  (I may be one of the few, but Im sure that I am not the only artist that does work outside of the city.  I am currently working on a campaign that focuses mainly on rural areas and some areas that have little to no population.  (Ill send some photos when I finish the project))  By adding a word in front of “art,” it will immediately allow the ignorant to categorize what it is that we do.  And when so many of us are doing such completely different things… style, medium, location, message, etc. it would almost be an injustice to label what we do.  Just because most of our art is displayed in urban areas or on the street, doesn’t mean the art should be defined by that.  There is so much more to it than that.  For example, just because the impressionists and cubists used canvas to paint on, doesn’t mean that they were labled as “canvas artists”  and just because art is displayed in a gallery doesn’t mean its referred to as “gallery art.”  So, I enjoyed the last statement that Tim had made…..“A celebration of art”  Plain and Simple.  When you boil it all down, thats all that you are left with.  It is what it is…..art.