Banksy Wasn’t Under the Bridge

But some other artists were. Or, rather, their work is still under the bridge. I find this stuff fascinating on so many levels. The questions whirl through my brain: Why would someone do this? Why underneath the bridge? How risky was this? Is the thrill just as great if the risk is low? Is that thrill mitigated by knowing that few will see your work? Is it art or vandalism? How many artists have work here? How long have these been here? When was the last time that this concrete was painted over by the authorities? Would these street artists be suspicious of me if they saw me photographing their work? Would they think that it was for law enforcement purposes? Would any of them talk to me and tell me about their work?

Graffo10 makes me think.
Graffo13 makes me laugh.
Graffo04 has the best color.
Graffo14 along with other photos not posted here shows the evolution of KIDO’s tag.


8 responses to “Banksy Wasn’t Under the Bridge

  1. I have something like this on mind, BUT, I am still working on the collection of photographs I will set. Yours are very nice!

    • Thanks for stopping by Cedric & looking at my photos & posts. Would really like to see the collection you mention. Please be sure to come back here when it is ready & let me know where I can see it!

  2. Fascinating! It certainly is an outlet and vehicle for expression of need…I suppose the emotional genesis is varied. I enjoy some graffiti and and am disturbed by some; it bothers me when it’s used to deface the work of other artists, including architects…thank you for these pictures!

    • Oh, Catherine! I could go on for much longer than I think the comment form would allow! Your comment brings up so much about art, chiefly I think, the question of “Does something have to be beautiful to be art?” My husband and I have this discussion frequently when we go to museums. I think that there is a lot of contemporary art that has as it’s only purpose to disturb. While I get that, I’m not sure that it is all art, but I recognize that sometimes my own emotions and thought patterns that are disturbed by the work will cloud my judgment on its value as a piece of art. Some art, I think, only exists to be a representation of a thing of beauty (or that thing, itself) but I don’t know that it is the only or a necessary criteria to qualify something as art.

      I think that some graffiti is not meant to be art, that sometimes it is just meant as a means to deface, a defiant gesture against authority. I agree that when it defaces something, it is unfortunate. But, I don’t stand firmly on one side of the argument. Is painting something on the underside of a bridge (I like the lines — the design — of this bridge btw) defacement? Yes. Does it matter? I suppose one shouldn’t do it, but I liked it none the less. Do some of the writings on the wall bother me? Yes, but many of them made me think too — and that is a valid function of art.

      Is graffiti art? Well, yes; definitely. Is all graffiti art? Of course not! Like all art, it is totally subjective.

      Thanks for making me think with your comment!

  3. mobius faith

    Nice series. Looks like most of the graffiti in Akron. And yes, Just like this bridge, Banksy has never been to my town either.

    • Graffiti does have a certain style that looks similar from place to place, doesn’t it? Just reading a bit online about graffiti though and I was surprised that there are entirely different “schools” of graffiti. I would have to spend a lot more time on it, though, to understand the subtle differences. I’m sure it is only my ignorance of the art that makes the subtleties indistinguishable to me.

  4. I photograph a lot of graffiti and wall murals. I am putting a photo book together about the art of graffiti. Where possible, I do have the name of some of the artist because the city has sponsored some of the art.


    • How interesting! Indianapolis had a large public art project with murals throughout the downtown area as part of Super Bowl 46. I haven’t seen all of the murals yet, but part of the project was that they had to remain for 10 years. I think it’s an easy bet that the ones I photographed weren’t sponsored by the city!