Some underlying themes in “Style Wars” are activist art, hip hop culture, emphasis on graffiti, wild style, street style, pop art, and young people’s creations. There is a porous nature of the divide between the cultures: at one point, deemed low culture eventually finds a glorification, often to an obnoxious extent, in high culture. A clear cut example of such is graffiti and street art. Before, guerilla artists such as Banksy were labeled “vandals” while today, his pieces are meticulously preserved from walls and sold to the highest bidder. The people of low culture often depend heavily on those of higher culture in a financial capacity. Such has almost always been the case for fine art. Art is often sold and bought by the upper class and produced by the lower class. Neither the artist nor the buyer has the incentive to cheapen the process. Both sides have strong motives to uphold the divide.
This situation in fine art always appear throughout the history of fine art. Economy seems always been a consideration in the creation of art, and art can be more than creative creations. For example, in “Modern art was CIA ‘weapon,’ art was a tool and weapon for governmental use, which is far from the original intention of art. Because of different background and status, art is often separated into “high” and “low” where people tend to evaluate art with a general social standard. However, art cannot be judged based on personal value because every artwork and every artist has their reason of art creation. I resonate this idea with the idea of privilege, too, where racial identity can be the reason for public judgement and misunderstanding. Similarly to art, minority or unpopular creations do not mean that they have no value. It is the lens of perspective people have to understand them.
baratheonpilled
2087
turnnoffyourmind
pixelskylines
romaincrisis
blakekathryn