London Street Art, Graffiti, Vandalism... and all in between

For you homework, you will address the following questions. 

Over the next week, please capture street art as you explore London. 

Identify two locations (art/graffiti) that enhance the landscape -and two locations (art/graffiti) that diminish the streetscape. Feel free to discuss your opinions of vandalism, notions of beauty, historical significance, etc. Integrate photographs into your blogs with a short response for each of the 4 images. 

While traveling through London this past week I encountered some imagery that falls in the gray area of street art/graffiti as well as some pointless tagging and/or 'vandalism'. I differentiate the two groups based on personal opinion of what I find eye catching, aesthetically pleasing, thought provoking, rude, or unnecessary. 

Unnecessary and rude usually encompasses spray painted tags on random streets vending kiosks, construction sites, backs of street signs, and unfortunately in this particular example, obnoxiously on a telephone booth in Piccadilly. This I definitely do not consider art. I believe this to be the result of the protests which occurred last week because of the universal sign for anarchy. While this sign is recognizable and meaningful in a sense, I view this display as just vandalism. No effort really seemed to go into the 'statement' it was intended to convey and to me is just obnoxious and disrespectful. 

This second photo I would also classify as unnecessary. While it is a little less obnoxious than the telephone booth display, I still find it to be a little irritating. It's just a bunch of scribbled tags that communicate something that I don't feel like deciphering or even stopping to really look at (which probably can explain the blurry photo). [found in Piccadilly on a closed street vendor]

On the bus on the way to Piccadilly, i noticed this 'graffiti'. I don't really see this image as graffiti, nor art, since it's not some illegible tag and it's not a really creative artistic display. The word LOVE within the shape of a heart was eye catching for it's odd location and peaceful commentary. The location to me, indicates that it was meant to be viewed by drivers and there seems to be more effort and thought put into this simple display.  For some reason however, I find it difficult to categorize; it could be easily passed, it could be seen as unnecessary, but also could be appreciated. 

This last photo [courtesy of Lizzie Herrick due to my irresponsibly losing my camera] can be found in Bricklane. This absolutely falls into my category of street art-graffiti. It's a creative image, a stencil almost etched into the wall. Effort, thought, and purpose seems to be behind this display. It's a hard image to casually pass by without noticing and immediately provokes thought. I think the scribbled tags disappointingly take away from it as a whole.

Clearly my divisions do not have distinct basis for as I analyze them my arguments begin to play a tug-of-war in my head, but there are certain images that I can appreciate and others that I can do without. This world of street art and graffiti has always interested me though and I find it fun to explore in the different cities and areas that I visit. 

National Gallery Swarms

Upon entering the National Gallery, I was immediately filled with a sense of anxiety and became completely overwhelmed by the amount of people that suddenly seemed to swarm around me. The numerous group tours, the school children, the talking, etc. Everything came at once and was for some reason, most likely due to exhaustion, intensified to no end. 

Feeling as though i was crawling my way through an ant hill or scurrying around a maze with hundreds of other mice, I got lost and dizzy weaving in and out of rooms, trying to take in all the famous pieces of art that everyone need to get a taste of. The feeling only remained as i went from room to room, each changing in wall color and lighting to suit the works, and observing countless famous pieces that I had been learning of the past two years. Within each of these rooms I felt forced to navigate myself through twists and turns of the swarms; keeping away from massive blockades of tour groups, as well as the occasional smaller groups of people that would halt their walk through abruptly many times blocking the painting for dozens behind them, and then those individual sketch artists posted in the corners and awkward spots making them inevitable to bump into. As it was amazing to see the famous works of Michelangelo, Titian, Van Gogh, Monet, among many many others, the swarms made it hard to fully enjoy this museum experience. Because of this, I definitely have intentions to go back before I leave to avoid the swarming, the bumping, and awkward foot faults.  

The National Portrait Gallery

The logo for the National Portrait Gallery is quite boring and plain and doesn't convey any message that really suggests the pieces within the museum. I suppose the logo kind of conveys the same as the architecture of the building which is simple but pretty and a little plain looking. The varying types of portraits however, make it hard to focus on one font or coloration for the logo to capture a sense of what the museum is about.

The portrait drawn on the left is a sketch of Lauren Rosenfeldt as the Dame Anna Neagle, whose portrait was painted by McClelland Barclay in 1940. Anna Neagle was a British actress and was the first actress to appear on the cover of Life magazine. I felt this portrait best identified with Lauren instantaneously by the depiction of Neagle's beautiful bright red hair, a notable attribute of my now close friend. This portrait also reminded me of Lauren through the upright posture and body positioning in which Neagle's hands grasp her hips to accentuate her upper body- a pose commonly found in an array of photographs of Lauren. The fact that Neagle was a popular and beautiful actress parallels Lauren's outgoing and dramatic personality that make her so lovable. 

The sketch to the right is a self portrait as Wallis Duchess of Windsor, a portrait by Gerald Leslie Brockhurst in 1939. Wallis was an American born woman who met the Prince of Wales in London. While I do not consider myself to be anywhere near the status of a Duchess, I can only identify with the desire to be an American girl in London, meeting the Prince and being the lucky lady who charms him. I admire the beauty of Wallis as well as her simple and sophisticated style that is shown in the original portrait. 

This sketch of the portrait of Sir William Walton by Michael Ayrton (1948) reminded me of fellow abroad student Max Florian, firstly with the young boyish look and sense of comfort and contemplation. Upon reading the portrait's description I learned that Walton was a composer who was dedicated and enthusiastic about music, similarly to Max. Additionally I found it humorous that Walton's portrait included a pipe and a drink, as probably would a portrait of Max. 

The sketch on the left of this image is a portrait of Lauryn Besasie as Beatrix Potter painted by Delmar Banner in 1938. Potter, a writer, artist, conservationist, caught my eye with the distant and sweet smile that reminded me of Lauryn. The portrait conveys Potter's maternal sense that is evident in her love of children, which lead her to write children's novels (such as Peter Rabbit), which reminded me of Lauryn's nurturing personality. Lauryn is also a very "green" minded girl and can be caught sketching in her notebooks also identifies with Potter in this way. The sketch on the right is of Karl Iglesias as Walter Richard Sickert who painted a self portrait in 1935. Only upon reading the caption did I identify Karl with Sickert, who was an aspiring actor, and very interested in music and theatre. While conveying a sense of individual style in the self portrait, I decided that Karl also holds this individualized fashion sense and also thought it necessary to include his signature headphones with a mic in hand (in place of Sickert's original cane).