Graffiti at the National Portrait Gallery
Art galleries have been showing the work of graffiti artists for quite some time now. Right now, large graffiti pieces are also on display in the "hallowed halls" of the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC. The pieces, by Tim Conlon and Dave Hupp, are part of an intriguing new exhibition titled Recognize! Hip Hop and Contemporary Portraiture. Along with graffiti, it features the work of a poet, photographer, filmmaker, and portrait artist. Seen here, "AREK" "CON" (Montana spray paint on Sintra panel, 182.9 cm x 609.6 cm). From Smithsonian:
Since museum officials were hesitant about artists spraying paint directly onto the gallery walls, the works were instead executed off-site by two local artists, Tim "Con" Conlon, 33, of Washington, D.C. and Dave "Arek" Hupp, 34, from Baltimore, who have both been spray-painting (or "tagging") trains and bridges since they were teenagers. They boast quite the portfolio of street graffiti, or what (co-curator Frank H. Goodyear III) euphemistically calls their "noncommissioned works." Hupp estimates that in his peak he tagged about 400 freight trains a year, and Conlon's signature pieces, many of which feature TV's "Simpsons" characters, can be seen around the country. In fact, their street art has gone commercial, with companies such as Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines recruiting them for advertising campaigns to target the youth demographic. Even Maisto International, a die-cast toy company, had the two artists tag model trains last year. "People who think it is just vandalism are amazed when they see what we can do with spray paint," Hupp says.Link to Smithsonian article, Link to Regognize! site
the latest
latest episodes
I was actually there this weekend to see Colbert's portrait, and was really impressed. The graffiti was prominently displayed, just to the right of the entrance, and it seemed to have drawn quite a crowd.
NICE! I live right down the street from here, I'm going to need to stop by this weekend.
The American Visionary Art Museum in Baltimore had a great Graffiti exhibit a few years ago too. Anyone in the area needs to check that place out!
Ugh..I despise graffiti and resent attempts to elevate it to an art form.
Graffiti's is often the most visible indication that you have just entered a "bad" neighborhood.
I see no more value in the large wall covering spray paint "murals" than I do in the crude words etched into every gas station bathroom mirror.
Grafitti is an indication of vandalism, property damage, decay.
I don't think the graph above says AREK, I think it says CON.
There are at least 100 graffiti artists who are WAY more deserving of the exposure than these two. Very poor curation which demos a complete lack of credibility as far as the graffiti world is concerned.
^^ you must not know much about arek, con or illegal graffiti.
The graffiti is only a small part of the exhibition. There are also numerous Hip Hop portraits, thus why it is at the Portrait Gallery. It was actually a fairly interesting exhibit, especially when contrasted with the 300 year old portraits down the hall.
> you must not know much about arek, con or illegal graffiti.
*****
Perhaps not. But I do know there are much more widely-known and better regarded artists in the field besides these two. Barry McGee (Twist) comes to mind. Doze and Dug One from S.F, Crash, Daze and Lady Pink from NYC are also all more seminal and prominent than Arek or Con.
BDGBill (3): xenophobia much? Graffiti's an artistic medium, and it has a distinctive style. Resent it all you want, but it's not going to go away.
Jody, that doesn't mean these artists are bad. It means there need to be more shows to get the other artists some visibility.
Even if I were arrogant enough to claim that some art is bad and some good, I certainly wouldn't use legality as a basis for determination. In terms of viewing pleasure, I'll take graffiti over second-rate baroque portraiture any day. I've lived in some of those "bad" neighborhoods, and they were more fun than the "good" ones.
The gallery was just reopened after many years of restoration. Other highlights include the enclosed courtyard with the wavy glass roof (picture here: http://americanart.si.edu/index3.cfm )
as well as the Colbert portait, a freaky portait of john Brown, and the allegedly possesed statue known as "Black Aggie."
Scroll down for a picture in one of Aggie's former outside locations. http://www.snopes.com/horrors/ghosts/agnes.asp
Here is train graffiti done by kids in rural Washington State.
Just showing their work, no big thang.
Think of it as photos from my ongoing travels....
http://www.photoblog.com/Gallone/
Cin-Cin!
That is definitely a CON piece, not an AREK. I wonder if the mislabelling occurred at curatorial level, or in the journey from there to here?
I quite like the idea of serious art historians beard-stroking and pontificating over this piece and connecting parts of it to the life and experience of THE PERSON WHO DIDN'T DO IT ...
... but then, I need to get out more.
that doesn't mean these artists are bad.
I wasn't saying they were bad. They're just another two mediocre examples of which there are probably hundreds of thousands now.
To put them in a national gallery representing graffiti is like giving an Oscar to Paris Hilton.
"Graffiti's is often the most visible indication that you have just entered a "bad" neighborhood."
@3: Couldn't have said it better myself. Welcome to my neck of the woods. Maybe you're from out in the country where you have nice rolling hills and beautiful scenery. Or maybe you're from the more affluent parts of the city where there's open parks with nice fountains. Well where I live, we make our own beauty with what we've got. No light for trees, no breath of fresh air, but still you can see beautiful artwork by your favorite contemporary artists for nothing more than a stroll around the block.
One of my favorite pieces of graffiti I ever saw was on a train-overpass above the street. Written on the archway was a simple message: "Keep the South Derty Y'all." Amen.
The only problem I have with this is that it could possibly invite vandalism INSIDE the museum, which would be unacceptable.
I wasn't saying they were bad. They're just another two mediocre examples of which there are probably hundreds of thousands now.
To put them in a national gallery representing graffiti is like giving an Oscar to Paris Hilton.
Do you even write graffiti?
Because for someone who wants to play graffiti armchair quarterback and kick dirt at these guys you obviously know that the Smithsonian stated in other articles they wanted local graffiti writers for the show. You also know that these guys are cool with some of the other writers you were so quick to mention and you obviously know all about Arek and Con's graff careers.
Stay salty and hating and get that last word in, cause you're looking dumber than Paris Hilton.
Graffiti on private property is vandalism. Graffiti on public property is vandalism.
Graffiti in the National Portrait Gallery is art.
Do tell...
graffiti can't be graffiti if it is "official"
In an art gallery,it's just spray painting
Do you even write graffiti?
That doesn't have any bearing on what I'm saying.
Because for someone who wants to play graffiti armchair quarterback and kick dirt at these guys you obviously know that the Smithsonian stated in other articles they wanted local graffiti writers for the show.
I wasn't aware of that. I assumed, since the exhibition is in a national gallery, that the intent was to curate something representative of American hip-hop and graffiti in toto. Thus, I figure they should have dug a bit deeper and found more seminal works and artists.
I'm kicking dirt at the curator. Con and Arek are clearly skilled with the can, and I'm sure their mark is up all over their local metro area. However, not as much can be said for their content, which looks exactly like 99% of the burners produced in this country over the last 20 years. If there's one thing that graffiti isn't doing, it's evolving as an illustrative art form, at least in its mainstream.
You also know that these guys are cool with some of the other writers you were so quick to mention and you obviously know all about Arek and Con's graff careers.
Not to throw more dirt, but they've only been active since 2000, or maybe a few years before that. When I moved to Oakland/Berkeley in 1987, that shit was in full swing, and at least at the same level these guys are at. My point is that there's a whole lot more to the graffiti culture than a couple guys who get up in the D.C. area, and this particular exhibit seemingly ignores that.
I've clearly misunderstood the intent of the show. It's obviously something more small-scale and locally-based, rather than a true sampling of American hip hop culture across its history. A few writers from D.C./Baltimore and a photographer from Albuquerque reflect a rather small sample instead of something more nationally representative. I guess I was expecting something that went deeper and was more historical than what "Recognize!" is seeming to me.
Stay salty and hating and get that last word in, cause you're looking dumber than Paris Hilton.
Depending on who's doing the looking, sure.
A retraction of sorts: Con and Arek are in no way anything like Paris Hilton. I'm sorry for drawing that line.
Simply put; graffiti is an ART form.
Where it is placed determines its legality.
JODY: Get over yourself.
The curator of this show should be commended for bringing modern street culture into this previously very conservative environment. Have you ever visited the National Portrait Gallery? It's not exactly a mecca for street culture, it's mostly rooms full of relatively staid portraiture, so this is very different. Is it true graffiti? No, not if it was made for a gallery, then it becomes Art. But that doesn't mean it has somehow lost value or meaning.
I saw this show and really enjoyed it, and I could care less about whether the graffiti artists have acieved maximum street cred. The are representing local DC artists and think it's pretty upbeat for Smithsonian.
For those who don't think graffiti is an art form, perhaps you have some more compelling argument that will convince the rest of us to stop believing that it is.
The curator of this show should be commended for bringing modern street culture into this previously very conservative environment.
Except for the fact that he's brought in one tiny slice of the gigantic pie. That's maybe cool for a local gallery or coffee shop show, but a national gallery should be representing on a national level, imo. Arek and Con may be nationally-known graffiti writers, but they are in no way Basquiats, Warhols or Pollacks of graffiti art.
that doesn't mean it has somehow lost value or meaning.
I'm not saying it lacks meaning, but I can't agree it has value as a national representation of graffiti art as it has existed over the last 30 years in America. While Arek and Con are, at a minimum, highly skilled graffiti artists of perhaps some renown, they do not reflect the entire culture of graffiti art across time, just the current state of its mainstream.
In my opinion, a national exhibit and its viewers deserve a deeper presentation of the material.
Not to throw more dirt, but they've only been active since 2000, or maybe a few years before that. When I moved to Oakland/Berkeley in 1987, that shit was in full swing, and at least at the same level these guys are at. My point is that there's a whole lot more to the graffiti culture than a couple guys who get up in the D.C. area, and this particular exhibit seemingly ignores that.
WRONG.....Arek stared graf in 1986 with the help of Jase Ba......He painted up until 2004 then stopped until December of 2000.....It's now 2008 do the math....It's not been said that these guy's claim to be king's...But they play significant rolls in graff......Con started in 2000 late 1999....
correction Con started in 1993.....
The graff world is huge to properly rep it would be very difficult.That's the beauty with art....
'It's in the eye of the beholder" !!!!