 |
| Brooklyn --> Manhattan. |
There's a game I like to play in my thoughts whenever I encounter something I appreciate, and well also, something I don't appreciate. It consists of questions like the following: Who decides that this is _______? Possible fill-ins for the blank are: acceptable, beautiful, ugly, intellectually stimulating, common sense, not common sense...you get the idea.
The last time I played this game, I was walking over the Williamsburg Bridge, heading into Brooklyn. A group of three just ahead of me was discussing how much of a shame it is that people "vandalize" the bridge with their sad excuses for art and "gang graffiti". I looked at them and thought how much of a shame it was that in all their existent physical glory, they seemed so one dimensional..
 |
| The touristy thing to do. . |
Sad excuses for art. Well, who decides what art is? Dead white people who we've never met and are just familiar over-referenced names people break out for the effect of seeming cultured? People who walk around and fill my ears with metaphorical bullshit of the simplest things because the way I already perceive things just isn't poetic enough, artsy enough, risky enough? Who decided that the bridge had ever been vandalized? I smiled at this question in my head because I knew that just an hour ago, I had walked across the bridge into Manhattan and had made numerous stops to take pictures and admire the "sad excuses for art" along the way.
I thought of these gang relations they spoke of that not
all graffiti artists are a part of, and vandalism of private property that is hateful, disrespectful, and just rude, and I thought of how much the
art on the bridge seemed nothing of that sort. Without these pieces of art, no one would stop, no one would look. The bridge would be a simple means to an end--a method of crossing the East River without having to swim through it or get yourself a boat. I envisioned the bridge without art--the bridge would be boring--naked--a tasteless lifeless structure of monotony most busy during rush hours as people droop along the way, head bent forward, shoulders slouched, another segment of a daily monotonous routine.
 |
| Art on the ground. |
Is that what this group of people preferred? Did they even think about what the bridge would be if it wasn't so "vandalized"? Did they even look at the sad excuses for art beyond the judgmental conclusions they had immediately drawn? I can stand people not agreeing with me about what art is--I obviously don't agree with many others on the topic either. What I can't stand is the judgments, the references to gang violence, low-class culture, low-life hoodlums, or "those kinds of people"--as this trio put it. From what I could tell, the art on the bridge said nothing about any one individual's culture capital or economic status. Rather, it said a lot about their existence in time and space and the circumstances of our city as a whole.
So, did these people see what was there? Voices? Expressions? Messages? Inspirations? Cries? Tributes? Memories? Why weren't they looking? Would they have made the same judgments had they really payed attention? Why did they decide this was not
_____art_____? Or maybe more importantly, who did they let decide for them that this was not
_____art_____?
 |
| Manhattan --> Brooklyn. |