Beautifying the Rails. Linnton, OR, May 2006. Photo: Alexander B. Craghead.
Q: Perhaps more philosophically, can something be both wrong and beautiful?
Scott Lothes: Actually, this is the easiest of the [questions] for me to answer: yes. Even if the steam engine is the single greatest cause for catastrophic climate changes, I will still think it a beautiful machine. Viewed from a great distance, the explosion of an atomic bomb can be visually stunning, even if thousands of lives were extinguished in that moment. The adulterous sex between a married man and a married woman can be beautifully passionate, even if the hearts of both their spouses are breaking because of it. Beauty chooses no sides in the great moral debate.
Jeff Bass: Yes, in my eyes, boxcar art is both wrong and beautiful. I see it as both. I think that we can get most to agree that all graffiti is "wrong", no problem there. It would be a stretch to think that we could even get a sizeble percentage to call graffiti "beautiful". Most graffiti is an eye-sore and a complete hassle for the property owner. Many graffiti artists don't hold the typical values when it comes to personal or corporate ownership of property. They feel it is theirs to write on, their own personal canvas. I would also venture to say that they think that all of their work is beautiful. They would hold the minority opinion here. So with those perspectives, graffiti is both "wrong" and "beautiful".
Reader Comments:
Powered by Blogger
This is not a simple issue. Graffiti is not a social ill unique to railroads. It is, however, unquestionably tied into their history. Any serious photographer who chooses to make railroads their subject must eventually confront what to do about a graffiti covered subject. For some, the knee-jerk reaction is to reject it or ignore it. For others, it is to embrace it as a kind-of counter-culture, vigilante, populist art form. ~Alexander B. Craghead
Who's right? Or is the answer more in the middle?
This piece is not meant to be some end-all opinion of how the photographic community ought to treat railroad graffiti. Rather, it is a log of a running conversation on the subject. And it does not end here. In fact, after being shown a preview of this essay, both Scott and Jeff asked to add a comments section, to allow readers to provide some feedback.
So feel free to tell us what you think. You're welcome to add any comments you wish, so long as they are generally civil. Advertisements and spam will be promptly deleted.
November, 2007
Photo Essay: Beautifying the Rails | <<< Previous Image
I used to hate spray paint graffiti. Really, hate it. Now I have somewhat come to terms with it. I view graffiti a bit in the way that I view rust on old metal- as part of story of an object that is outdoors all the time. If that is being damned by faint praise, so be it.
On its own terms though, most graffiti as art is unimaginative, although some of it does show a mastery of whatever current style and technique it aspires to.
Rare is the "piece" that attracts my attention for its own merit- but, and I almost hate to admit this, it does happen sometimes. For every urban Rembrandt though, there are a thousand adolescents releasing hormones via aerosol.
Graffiti as art? -Sometimes- but not nearly enough. Or in the words of a tagger on a wall near the Albina Yard, "If this were art, you would be standing in a gallery." The message, delivered without technique, perfectly captured a paradox.
It made me think.
It might even have been art.
-Dan
Post a Comment