Forum D

camera-girl-5  124659356_bbe1e5b661_o   Banksy’s work…


47_450px  Work of Billboard Liberation Front


Would you characterize the work above by Banksy and the Billboard Liberation Front “transgressive”? What does “transgressive” mean, connotate? Who gets to define what is and what is not “transgressive”? How does the term “transgressive” determine how such work in public space is received?  What other terms might some argue might be more appropriate or accurate to describe such work above? How is the term “transgressive” itself a contested space?

4 responses to “Forum D

  1. By definition yes I would consider the work above to be transgressive because they were not meant to be there; the works above were not meant to be paired up with the objects also involved in the pictures. Trangressive means to not be in the wrong place, set beyond its boundaries. I believe those who don’t believe in the full spectrum of freedom of speech. That it is to say people who say that they agree with this inalienable right but when it crosses over into their territory, they suddenly become defensive and sensitive about the subject and put a label on the action, “transgressive”. When hearing about transgressive work, the connotation in relation to public space is bad, abominable and defective when i believe other terms such as authentic and distinctive are more suitable to the works as they as there to display someone’s point of view which is why it could be considered a contested space.

  2. Technically, Banksy is breaking the law by vandalizing these buildings, as a transgression is breaking a rule. Personally, I’m not offended by Banksy’s work as shown above, in fact, I find it pretty funny. Everything I know about him comes from what I just learned on Google, so I’m not the most educated person of his work. But from what I can see, he simply makes statements in humorous ways. Defacing someone’s property is one issue, and offending people with his art is another. I don’t feel he’s transgressed against me in any way, but then again, I might feel differently if he painted something on the side of my own house.
    As for the Billboard Liberation Front, if they want to make their own billboards, that’s completely fine and legal, but when they start defacing other people’s ads, a line may be crossed.

    To most people, I think “to transgress” means to do wrong. To me, committing a transgression can be breaking one of my own moral laws. For example, I have no idea where Banksy has painted this art, but in the right setting, these graffiti drawings could be offensive.
    If someone calls the art “transgressive” it would imply something terrible was done, something worthy of a criminal. I wouldn’t use the word “transgressive” to describe these images above; I would say they’re bold, making a statement.
    I suppose everyone has they’re own definition of “transgressive” (as I wrote above, I would use it to describe breaking one of my “self-rules”) as each person has their own idea of what it means to transgress. So because of that, there could be debate over what rule Banksy or BLF is breaking.

  3. A transgressive sign is a sign which is in place but is in some way unauthorized. I believe this means that transgressive signs are signs that are unwanted by the public and go against the social norms we live by. I feel that government officials are the ones who decide which signs are transgressive or not. They would view the above graffiti work of Banksy to be illegal. He is violating property for the sake of his art and the overall meaning he is trying to portray. Once you place a term like transgressive on a form of art such as the ones above I believe people already start to associate it with being illegal and destructive. As an art major I think his graffiti has a lot of meaning however to many people they may dismiss this all together because overall many are taught that graffiti is destructive and nothing more. Im not really sure what other terms would be better to describe these images however in my high school art classes we always classified graffiti as an act of expression. I guess if i had to choose I would want it to be classified as expression and not as transgressive because it sends such a negative vibe about the art work. In my opinion I don’t agree with graffiti being illegal. It is just another example of the government trying to control social behavior. Work such as this should be embraced and taken for what it is. I believe his work is in most cases graffiti because it adds to the rebellious factor of the images in his work.

  4. I don’t think there’s an edit option, but I just wanted to add that for a sign to be considered “transgressive” it is viewed as being in the wrong place. According to that definition, I do not believe that these signs are transgressive. They work and make sense where they are; I think the issue with these signs are: should it be allowed for people to express their ideas by defacing property, public or private?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s