Here’s something I found entirely by accident on a walk recently.
It’s been painted in an abandoned and very derelict church in Bewdley, Worcestershire and the most striking element to me is that I immediately read it from right to left.
In this direction it conveys the impression of afterlife, re-birth, and surrounded by overgrown and fallen gravestones of some antiquity, bought peace and poignancy to death – despite its garish colours and vivid imagery I was somehow calmed by its image.
Whoever painted it needs applause, its brave, especially considering the location and its somehow arresting, it stopped me in my tracks…..question is, was it meant to be read in this direction or is it meant to convey the route from youth to death…a real example of how art can be interpreted in different ways.
There’s plenty of examples of urban art in public spaces on the net, and the temptation to create in a public space is obvious, these pieces get an audience that is in effect easy – the art is bought to the audience rather than the other way around so there’s no persuasive media needed to have the piece seen.
However, whilst browsing through photos of derelict buildings on a derelict buildings web site I came across some urban art that fits a different mould altogether. On this site there are pieces of art that are simply fantastic, and yet, they are never seen except by trespassers, those in need of a temporary home and the demolition crew …. these artists are creating work entirely for their own pleasure, not influenced by a viewing public or customer commission …..
Is it true to say then that an artist is only truly free to create when there are no commercial, fashion or other external influences?