Four pieces in two days in Cotati…. The first three were originally intended to be installed together, but I ended up deciding to spread them around town instead:
I’ve thus far been following Streetcolor’s advice in terms of installing my pieces in broad daylight, with an air of one who knows exactly what she is doing, and whose actions are benign, rather than as a vandal in the dark of night. I don’t like the association of the terms graffiti and “bombing” with this activity, although I can’t help using that language myself in discussing it.
It’s public art that is by its nature ephemeral. You can create something that will last for a few hours or even for many months, but eventually the piece will be taken down. Its impermanence is one of the things that sets it apart from vandalism. My goal is not to offend the eye, it’s to add charm to the visual, tactile and social landscape, and maybe, in time, to do something that qualifies as art. But when I miss the mark, it takes 10 seconds with a pair of scissors to make it go away. And if I make something that stays long enough to become weathered and tattered, maybe that means the work was a success.
Somewhat related: I’m singularly unimpressed with this paragraph in the NYT piece:
“Whether yarn bombing is the work of artists or glorified knitters(1), the view of law enforcement is clear(2): it is considered vandalism or littering. Still, the police seem to tolerate it. Yarn bombers say they rarely have run-ins with the law. And in the few instances when they are stopped, yarn bombers say, the police are more likely to laugh at them than issue a summons (3).”
(1) So according to the NYT knitting is not a valid medium for “art?”
(2) This assertion is about to be contradicted by the rest of the paragraph.
(3) So what was the “clear” view of law enforcement again? Stern, tolerant, oblivious, or condescending?
I put one up in Sonoma today but forgot to bring my camera. Photos to come if it’s still there tomorrow.