Blog Post #3

      While talking to Fel3000ft, I felt conflicted. Whenever I look at graffiti, or street art, there is always a line that I draw in my head. I can never appreciate the art in its full beauty until I establish that the graffiti does not cross that line: the line between vandalism and art. The reason I felt conflicted was because, while listening to him, I realized that Fel3000ft's line lies in a very different place to mine. However, although I felt conflicted, I did not feel uncomfortable. This is probably because I'm not exactly sure where my line lies. Fel3000ft told us that if someone paints on a building, which is an eyesore but technically owned by someone, the artist is merely making it better. It has almost been a week since Fel3000ft said that to us, and I'm still not sure whether or not I agree. While I completely understand and do not even entirely oppose his perspective, I have to ask myself: what if I were the owner of that building? What if a graffiti artist were to make social commentary on my building, and I happened to be extremely offended by that social commentary? This was not the only thing that Fel3000ft said that struck me. He also mentioned that if Detroit were to outlaw all street art tomorrow and harshly enforce that decree, he would use his voice in its full power. He described his voice as something almost dormant, which he has used in the past; if he needs to do so, he will reactivate it. It is interesting to me that one can harbor such a voice but use it selectively. In what scenarios would he use it? On what piece did he last use it in its full power? Overall, Saturday's trip, especially the graffiti tour, was extremely thought provoking, and I know that I will continue to ponder it for at least the remainder of the semester.