Recognition by abduction

Street gallery minus one

Who owns street art? A couple of weeks ago I went past a row of earlier portraits – mentioned here – and found one of them Wrinkles and glassesmissing. Someone had brought tools and removed the poster board on which the portrait was sprayed. It made me reflect upon the ownership to street art, not in any legal or copyright terms, more as a moral ownership. The closest I get to an answer is that street art belongs to the citizens as a collective. I consider it a gift. It may of cause be an unwanted one, as it is forced upon them – as are all public art, architecture, advertisement, signs, planted trees, etc. Still, in my experience most respond in an approving way.

A gift is normally a transaction with a sort of delayed reciprocity attached to it – an expectation of something in return, sometime. As for street art, the return is mostly limited to recognition and appreciation – which is always nice to receive and a true inspiration. I choose to regard the missing portrait as an acknowledgment. I hope that someone took so much pleasure in the work that he or she had to give it a new home – one may dream…

I feel somewhat responsible for the poster board that was removed, but it is hardly a great loss, and the empty spot gave me a chance to ad a new piece to the ”gallery”.

Recognition by abduction

...any thoughts...?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s