Does the manipulation of an impermanent element alter how we conceptualize place or space?
Simon Beck - walks in the Swiss alps in snowshoes to create these masterpieces
Faust - graffiti artist who wrote "Frozen" lyrics in NYC on cars
Chase - spray painted humorous signs and slogans on piles of snow
Who has the ultimate right to natural elements such as snow? Is snow free to the public or does it belong to the privatized space it falls on? How is snow different from other natural resources, say trees and branches, that belong to national forests?
INTRODUCTION
This semester in Stefano Bloch's course, Bottom-Up Urbanism, we were challenged to think outside the box, to answer questions with more questions. We didn't need to come to an absolute answer, but instead continue to think about more questions. When choosing topics to delve into further regarding situations of bottom-up urbanism, I wanted to do something no one had ever talked about. I could hardly find the right thing to type into google to find what I was looking for.
I wanted to focus specifically on how people interacted with snow this winter - after record amounts of snow fell, canceling school, covering cars, and causing overall mayhem in the Boston, Providence, and New England area. However, the term I labeled to this phenomena was "snow art," which is a widely applied term for many different variations of interactions with snow. I chose to focus on three cases, as shown above: Simon Beck, Faust, and Chase. Each artist interacting with the snow in a different way, in different places.
I found that snow was this untapped, unresearched aspect of nature with little regulation - or little regulation public on the internet. I became curious as to who had the right to the snow? Was it free for the public to use in whatever manner they so chose?
This webpage is a discussion on the elements surrounding snow that make it a unique place capable of enacting change in the urban environment.
This semester in Stefano Bloch's course, Bottom-Up Urbanism, we were challenged to think outside the box, to answer questions with more questions. We didn't need to come to an absolute answer, but instead continue to think about more questions. When choosing topics to delve into further regarding situations of bottom-up urbanism, I wanted to do something no one had ever talked about. I could hardly find the right thing to type into google to find what I was looking for.
I wanted to focus specifically on how people interacted with snow this winter - after record amounts of snow fell, canceling school, covering cars, and causing overall mayhem in the Boston, Providence, and New England area. However, the term I labeled to this phenomena was "snow art," which is a widely applied term for many different variations of interactions with snow. I chose to focus on three cases, as shown above: Simon Beck, Faust, and Chase. Each artist interacting with the snow in a different way, in different places.
I found that snow was this untapped, unresearched aspect of nature with little regulation - or little regulation public on the internet. I became curious as to who had the right to the snow? Was it free for the public to use in whatever manner they so chose?
This webpage is a discussion on the elements surrounding snow that make it a unique place capable of enacting change in the urban environment.
art vs graffiti
There always seems to be a fine line between what can be considered art and what is considered graffiti. Often people describe art as the expression of a creative skill - but what then differs that from graffiti. Graffiti is known as the writing, drawing, or spraying illicitly on walls or other spaces in a public manner. Stefano Bloch once said a true graffiti artist is someone who has risked something to put up a tag; whether that is risking their life, risking get caught by the cops, risking breaking a bone - it involves a sense of danger.
When does graffiti become art?
Some say never:
When does graffiti become art?
Some say never:
- graffiti is vandalism
- graffiti is meaningless
- graffiti is illegal
- graffiti is inspiring
- graffiti is a creative outpouring
- graffiti serves a public good through its artistry and messages (Lu Olivero)
Time
Does the fact that snow is temporary change the way we perceive graffiti that is written on it?
While snow may be a temporary part of the urban and rural landscape, it can last for many months which takes away its attribute of being temporary. Writing on the snow banks in Boston and New York, as a way of advertising, adding humor, or sending a message, changed the perceived urban environment.
Artists like Beck who spend hours creating true art in the Swiss Alps just for it to disappear in matter of minutes or hours is a unique situation. Most graffiti and art last for more than a day or so. But does the meaning of art change when it is temporary? Does the fact that only a certain amount of people will see the creation before it disappears forever change the meaning of space before, during, and after?
While snow may be a temporary part of the urban and rural landscape, it can last for many months which takes away its attribute of being temporary. Writing on the snow banks in Boston and New York, as a way of advertising, adding humor, or sending a message, changed the perceived urban environment.
Artists like Beck who spend hours creating true art in the Swiss Alps just for it to disappear in matter of minutes or hours is a unique situation. Most graffiti and art last for more than a day or so. But does the meaning of art change when it is temporary? Does the fact that only a certain amount of people will see the creation before it disappears forever change the meaning of space before, during, and after?
Urban environment
"The environment and its colors are perceived, and the brain processes and judges what it perceives on an objective and subjective basis. Psychological influence, communication, information, and effects on the psyche are aspects of our perceptual judgment processes" -Frank H. Mahnke
The importance of thinking about the man-made environment and how it relates to the natural environment is a critical notion for the next generations. If humans are not careful, they are capable of destroying the natural with the unnatural. Simon Beck uses the natural to create beauty, whereas Chase writes on the natural with the unnatural to create humor. In Chase's case, when the snow melts his spray paint will pollute the water system - causing harm to animals. In Beck's case, his art projects in the snow will disappear and leave no trace - except for maybe a photograph.
Legal vs illegal
"Legal venues for the art form are great – they allow artists to perfect their works and, perhaps get paid for them – but there are drawbacks as well. Few legal venues allow for complete creative freedom and many purists in the graffiti community feel that paintings created with permission lack the spirit and intensity that can only result from painting under pressure. A well-executed painting, rendered under adverse conditions and time constraints, is far more impressive than one undertaken without risk." (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/11/when-does-graffiti-become-art/legal-venues-celebrate-graffiti-as-an-art-form)
Written somewhere in one of the many definitions of graffiti implies a sense of danger, a sense of illegality, a sense that writing, drawing or tagging an illegal surface was worth the risk for creative whatever it was that went up on that surface. But when the illegality is taken out of the picture, is it still graffiti? Or is it a commissioned mural?
Interestingly, Simon Beck likes to get permission before he creates his masterpieces in the snow. However, I would be shocked if anyone but himself dictated what he could create. Chase and Faust did not seek "permission" for their decorations in/on the snow. But was what they did illegal if it was on an impermanent surface and would disappear in a matter of hours, minutes, or days?
Some may say yes, they ventured onto private property and inserted themselves in it. Others may say no, who owns the snow anyways? Without the use of an external material it is just doodling in the snow - like drawing in the dirt or the sand with a stick. The only difference between a mountain and the beach compared to a car is that one is private property per an individual. Not to say that mountains and beaches are not owned by people or institutions, but it would be much harder to regulate those large areas as opposed to vandalizing a car.
Written somewhere in one of the many definitions of graffiti implies a sense of danger, a sense of illegality, a sense that writing, drawing or tagging an illegal surface was worth the risk for creative whatever it was that went up on that surface. But when the illegality is taken out of the picture, is it still graffiti? Or is it a commissioned mural?
Interestingly, Simon Beck likes to get permission before he creates his masterpieces in the snow. However, I would be shocked if anyone but himself dictated what he could create. Chase and Faust did not seek "permission" for their decorations in/on the snow. But was what they did illegal if it was on an impermanent surface and would disappear in a matter of hours, minutes, or days?
Some may say yes, they ventured onto private property and inserted themselves in it. Others may say no, who owns the snow anyways? Without the use of an external material it is just doodling in the snow - like drawing in the dirt or the sand with a stick. The only difference between a mountain and the beach compared to a car is that one is private property per an individual. Not to say that mountains and beaches are not owned by people or institutions, but it would be much harder to regulate those large areas as opposed to vandalizing a car.