Rather than only using spray paint or silk-screen, Silva uses found objects and shapes them into eye-catching installations by either literally cutting into and around the surface and/or painting directly onto them with enamel. I was first acquainted with his work in the fall of '06 and have maintained an interest in his media. I find it intriguing that he puts a lot of time and detail into his work on these objects that people had originally thrown out and then gives them back to the community. What I also love is his attention to the material and location where he presents his work and how they affect his translation of what colors to use and objects or people to place in these particular locations.
Under Silva's artist statement he says:
"I believe that collective consciousness is infinitely more important than that of individual intellect. For this reason, I am most interested in the interventions of public art. It is my goal to find more ways to expose the general public to art that they can relate to and be inspired by. I want to create progressive, quality public artworks as visual alternatives to the manipulative energies of advertising in public spaces. My goal is to push the envelope of the public art movement by producing work that uses engaging combinations of materials and content to encourage the perceptual and spiritual evolution of the general public.
I am saddened by the cruelty, ignorance and greed of humans. My priority as an artist is not to receive accolades and praise for my talents, but rather to inspire others to help to create a just and meaningful world."
A couple questions I want to ask are do you think this is a successful and affective way to distribute art? Does the fact that most of his work can be easily removed add or retract from his goal? And just like questions brought up in class about Swoon, how does the idea of moving street art into an interior installation work for or against his purpose?
2 comments:
I don't understand his artist statement. Especially "that collective consciousness is infinitely more important than that of individual intellect." The prints are pretty, and look appropriately cool in their urban spaces. I can't imagine how they influence the spiritual evolution of the general public or inspire others to create a just and meaningful world, but maybe someone can explain.
What I really don't like about the artist statement is his goal of making working that the public can relate to. This seems problematic on two fronts: it seems to underestimate the public and this work isn't any more accessible to a public than any other work- it seems so firmly tied to urban youth culture. Maybe his public is limited to urban people under the age of 30?
Sometimes artists statements can really ruin everything.
Seriously.
I really like the painting on the abandoned mattress. Hadn't seen that one before.
Post a Comment