The Secret and Subconscious Art of Graffiti Removal: Satircal or Strangely True Artistic Genius?

From The Secret Art of Graffiti Removal group on Flickr

Most would argue that graffiti removal is at best the elimination of vandalism or at worst the destruction of art, right? One award-winning film argues something quite different: that graffiti removal is the ultimate next step in the progression of modern art. Despite its semi-satirical intent, The Subconscious Art of Graffiti Removal raises many provocative questions and is an oddly compelling look at what might be the most overlooked art of our time. A closer look at the film reveals some surprising and strange realities regarding the art of graffiti removal.

Example of Symmetrical from Graffiti Removal Art
Example from the Symmetrical subcategory of graffiti removal art

the subconscious art of graffiti removal (excerpt) from matt mccormick on Vimeo.
The Subconscious Art of Graffiti Removal overtly follows the dull task of removing graffiti from public property and analyzes the resulting patchworks of paint. Regine of WMMNA summarizes: “the movie humourously compares city workers’ job to pain over existing graffiti to the works of abstract masters such as Mark Rothko, Kazimir Malevich and Robert Rauschenberg, dividing removal works into subcategories such as ghosting, symmetrical, and radical.” The result? A surprisingly convincing argument for graffiti removal as art, though reminiscent of humorous artworld spoofs such as animal art or child art being passed off as masterpieces.

Example of Ghosting in Graffiti Removal Art
Example from the Ghosting subcategory of graffiti removal art

Above: The difficulty of tagging and of tag removal in San Francisco

Isn’t it strange the you have to pay to have a building painted, but in some places the city will paint your building for free to remove graffiti? The film’s director, Matt McCormick, claims that graffiti removal sometimes receives more funding than the arts. If you accept his premise that graffiti removal is “art,” this means that in certain locations graffiti removers are the highest paid “artists,” painting for a profit the likes of which many artists (and most graffiti artists) may never see. Though in what sense does it really make sense to call graffiti removal art? Well, whether the work is conscious or subconscious, the director also argues that graffiti removal bears striking aesthetic similarities to “abstract expressionism, minimalism and Russian constructivism.”

Example of Radical in Graffiti Removal Art
Example from the Radical subcategory of graffiti removal art

Above: Another video depicting The Subconscious Art of Graffiti Removal

A fully-fledged Flickr photography group has emerged around the film, adding even more bizarre credibility to its dubiously satirical message along with screenings and awards at film festivals around the world. So is graffiti removal really subconscious art? The definition of art is, of course, always subjective. Still, the filmmaker uses definitions of graffiti removal and subconscious art that suggest he just might be onto something: “Graffiti Removal is the act of removing tags and graffiti by painting over them and Subconscious Art is a product of artistic merit that was created without conscious artistic intentions.”

Thanks to xaotica for the tip!

Want More? Check Out These Great Related Articles:

Posted by Urbanist December 9th, 2007
Graffiti, Street Art, Urban, Urban Art, Urban Images, Urban Videos
Comments: 29

Comments

Comment from TechDune
Time: December 9, 2007, 9:44 pm

wow ..!
These are Xtra-ordinary Art…Thanks

Comment from Jollyjo
Time: December 10, 2007, 2:26 pm

For some reason…I was grabbed by the headline which for some reason registered as “tattoo removal”…oh what a day that would be.

As for the article…It’s a great contradiction isn’t it…I guess one man’s art is another’s eye sore…the bottom line for me though is that as long as we are talking about public property, art or no art, it has to go!

Comment from WillPill
Time: December 10, 2007, 2:49 pm

What a very strange concept!

Comment from Umm
Time: December 10, 2007, 6:50 pm

Were you guys high when you came up with the concept of graffiti removal as modern art?

Comment from cheechy
Time: December 10, 2007, 9:28 pm

sorry but no. this idea is as bad as the back ground music to the movie. it is simply covering up something of a certain size with something else. You know what f it i am taking advantage of the stupidity running rampant in the arts section of this world. Daily i will now be photographing the unconscious art of my poo. Everyday i create at least one truly beautiful piece of art and squander it down the drain well no more. If people will pay for this and give grants for this then surely they will pay for my fecal matter.

Comment from sub_atomic
Time: December 10, 2007, 10:08 pm

Satire was here.

Comment from Dada
Time: December 10, 2007, 10:42 pm

I approve.

Comment from MySpace Text
Time: December 11, 2007, 5:34 am

Modern art to me

Comment from matt
Time: December 11, 2007, 11:13 am

Wow. Apparently you people have never dealt with gang related graffiti. If you had, you’d know that eliminating this kind of graffiti is a valuable tool to stop the spread of gang territory and violence.

But ya know, you can call their tagging “art” and whine that the people doing it are being repressed.. that is until your front door gets shot up.

Comment from Urbanist
Time: December 11, 2007, 2:15 pm

It was clear from the outset that this would provoke debate on all sides, which is not only appreciated but encouraged. Art or not, the discussion is the important part. However, thoughtful arguments are probably more productive than mudslinging. If everyone would keep a respectful tone and try to appreciate all sides of these issues that would probably be best for all! Thanks.

Comment from Dwight Richard
Time: December 12, 2007, 7:05 am

HI!
Thank-you for your service, everything has arrived without any hiccups.
:)

Comment from NaFun
Time: December 12, 2007, 12:24 pm

Reminds me of a graffiti show held in Seattle many years ago (5? 6?) where one of the submissions was blocks of paint that looked like graff had been painted over. An earnest graff artist could cover the city in little blocks of taupe and no one would ever know they’d been pwnd.

Comment from john
Time: December 12, 2007, 4:02 pm

You’re right it is better to avoid mudslinging, but maybe the reason people so vehemently reject this sort of thing (Graffiti or graffiti-removal-as-art) is because it goes beyond mere aesthetics (which are personal and kinda beyond argument) and into the bizarre and paranoid. For example people who clean up graffiti stand accused of “rejecting recognizable visual imagery” and trying to “repress communication entirely” like they’re all a bunch of fascists or something.

Comment from racehorse
Time: December 14, 2007, 4:26 am

i think its a really interesting concept, and i think its about what you see as art, and where you choose to see art, i think this adopts a broad view of what can be art and encourages people to find their own definition of art, i like the discussion it generates.
i also think that the background music to that clip gets a bit annoying :)

Comment from Stephen Summerlin
Time: December 15, 2007, 10:10 am

I had not thought about the gang side of the story, I just love the art form. Since I live in a rural area graffiti was only seen on box cars passing by, but know I can find it on the Internet. Banksy is art, look him up on the web. As it becomes more main stream, it will be accepted.

Comment from john
Time: December 15, 2007, 10:44 am

for every 1 Banksy there are hundreds, if not thousands of Crapsy’s.

Comment from Tom
Time: December 19, 2007, 8:00 am

Well… I would argue it isnt modern art unless it is photographed or reproduced under the context of art as these filmmakers have done.

For example when the sun sets over the ocean, it is not art until someone photographs it or makes a painting of it. Just as this graffiti removal is only modern art when you are seeing it through the lens of this movie, or through the artistic eyes of the filmmaker.

The artists are NOT the cityworkers nor “subconscience art” —It is the filmmaker’s who create this art by placing these shapes within the frame of their lenses. I will keep an eye out for similiar shapes within my city for fun! Interesting discussion, thank you!

Comment from Chris
Time: February 9, 2008, 4:40 am

Gloriously interesting article, never even considered this as art form but it totally is.
Thanks for the introduction to something new and exciting.

Comment from Citizenchimp
Time: February 21, 2008, 4:47 pm

Wow, @ 2:08 in the first video proves my suspicions completely - This movement was started by Mark Rothko. fuck all.

Comment from ok
Time: March 14, 2008, 12:36 pm

Graffiti removal can in no way shape or form be considered art. Not only is it the destruction of creativity, passion, and artistic talent; it is the conformity to society. Just because there is something out of the ordinary painted on a wall, does not mean that it has to be painted over. Then sombody goes and looks at the painted squares where graffiti onced existed and be like wow its art! no if this is the case should we go around and spray squares on the sides of buildings instead of creating beautiful works of art? i think not.

Comment from veto
Time: March 25, 2008, 9:14 pm

why is graffiti considerd vandalism and this sorry excuse for abstract modern is art? buuuuuullll shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit… graff feend for life.

Comment from Lord Jim
Time: April 1, 2008, 8:54 pm

Sometimes you can see the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right…

Comment from ledger
Time: April 4, 2008, 6:34 pm

ledger - best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field