-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
---
The modern individual lives in a world of symbols. Everything around us, from t-shirts to architecture, constitutes a medium for interpretation. Even quotidian decisions exude statements: shaving, brushing one’s hair, continuing with or deviating from a routine, it all gives others one impression or another. Accompanying our multitude of choice is a multitude of possible implications, and often our actual effects on other people can vary widely from person to person. In one way, we are reliant upon certain codes to convey certain meanings; without a common set of expectations and accepted styles of recognition, the implications of even our deliberate actions would be put beyond our control—and in some cases, they already are. Such is the basis of Joanne Phillips’ argument in “What we can learn from Banksy,” an article which compares and contrasts the intentions and effects of anonymous British street artist Banksy and “established” urban designers of public spaces. The difference between the former’s graffiti and the latter’s designs is merely semantic, the author argues, and in some cases the cityscape accomplishes direct and powerful distillation of meaning better when manipulated by the “subversive, creative” type than by the hired architecture or city planner.
Phillips considers a landscape to be a specific type of text, as our physical surroundings are often subject to analysis in much the same way that other messages are. Ideas, attitudes or other perceptions are achieved in a particular observer’s mind in an interaction of design choices with personal disposition. The use of language in a design of urban space, as in a plaque quoting poetry in a city square, therefore combines two texts, a physical “landscape-text” and a written text. The written text’s purpose, according to Phillips, is to direct an observer towards a certain interpretation of the scene before them—in effect, to create a code that will influence observers’ expectations of the landscape. Where the original designer of a cityscape might have had more utilitarian considerations, the graffiti artist often acts as a voice for the people who perceive the currently upheld system to be failing. Banksy, in particular, criticizes “the failure of modernism” by calling out the flaws of the order held in the local area and by giving voice to felt sentiments of populaces which are not always prominent. Because Banksy’s statements are often more visceral and apparent than the intentions of the landscape designers which he layers meaning over—and because his work often stands for the realistic concerns of everyday people—the article argues that Banksy is more successful, “less forced and unnatural,” in influencing the perception of an urban area, in directing interpretations of a location’s meaning.
The street artist’s wit is also an undeniable facet of his effective use of text-layering. It is the unifying force in a sense, as it serves to link the common man more intimately with the cityscape. In essence, Phillips’ argument hinges upon Banksy’s appeal to the broadest demographic possible, as her evaluation envisions the landscape-text’s effectiveness as a meritocratic consensus born from the chaos of the urban environment. Banksy is therefore in her estimation a unifier, a leader who brings a single message to a diverse array of people rather than catering to bureaucratic or political demands. This is the strength that he has over the city planner, whose plaque with a poem has only a nominal sort of appeal: Banksy can attract people who live around, beside and beneath his works. He draws his evocative power from the very location in which his audience lives.
Phillips, Joanne. “What We Can Learn from Banksy.” Green Places. No. 59 (October 2009). 32-4. http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.35
No comments:
Post a Comment