Andrea Baldini

Is graffiti writing creative activism? In this paper, I challenge commonly held beliefs that graffiti writing is politically inert. On the contrary, I argue that graffiti writing is an example of creative activism. Rather than being a narcissistic form of vandalism, primarily directed at increasing one’s fame in front of an esoteric group, that is, fellow writers, writing is a form of everyday resistance allowing its practitioners to challenge authoritarian power. In questioning dominant hierarchies, graffiti is a powerful tool to help correct a specific instance of spatial injustice: the unequal distribution of access to urban surfaces for self-expression in the city, where corporations and political elites hold an unjustified monopoly over visual communication.

What is the relationship between street art and the law? In 'A Philosophy Guide to Street Art and the Law', Andrea Baldini argues that street art has a constitutive relationship with the law. A crucial aspect of the identity of this urban art kind depends on its capacity to turn upside down dominant uses of public spaces. Street artists subvert those laws and social norms that regulate the city. Baldini shows that street art has not only transformed public spaces and their functions into artistic material, but has also turned its rebellious attitude toward the law into a creative resource. He aims at elucidating and arguing for this claim, while drawing important implications at the level of street art's metaphysics, value, and relationship with rights of intellectual property, in particular copyright and moral rights. At the other end of the spectrum of contractual art, street art is outlaw art.

What is street art? This paper offers a definition of street art as an art kind or art form based on its essential value: its subversiveness. It argues that street art is essentially subversive in virtue of using public space as a technical resource. By hijacking a portion of the urban landscape with its colourful forms and witty designs, street art challenges familiar ways of practising the city, while creating a ‘temporary autonomous zone’ of free expression. There, corporate control over the city’s visible surfaces is ridiculed and people reclaim their right to use the city. In this sense, street art functions as a carnivalesque tactic of social resistance, favouring the emergence of alternative ways to imagine our urban life and our uses of public space. By considering its subversiveness, one can also explain how street art (i) significantly differs from official public art; (ii) includes graffiti as its original and most radical style.

We are living in the era of street art. Since Nick Riggle’s pivotal work on the definition of street art, several philosophers have addressed issues in the philosophy of street art. The goal of this paper is to summarize the literature. I consider the following matters, which have been at the core of philosophical discussions on street art: demarcation, value, illegality, and the ethical foundation of intellectual property (IP) protection. In answering the question ‘What is street art?,’ philosophers have generally resisted skeptical approaches by developing a wide range of real and essentialist definitions of street art (Section 2). When considering street art’s value, I distinguish between aesthetic and non-aesthetic centered accounts. If the former focus on the aesthetic side of our experience of street art, the latter generally place emphasis on its activist nature and political significance (Section 3). In discussing the relationship between street art and illegality, I canvas different takes on the issue. If for some scholars illegality is either a necessary or sufficient condition for street art, philosophers tend to agree that it is neither, while not denying its relevance at the level of identity and authenticity (Section 4). Finally, I consider matters of IP protection of street art. On the one hand, copyright optimists defend the view that current IP legislations may very well have a positive impact on the promotion and preservation of street art. Pessimists, on the other hand, argue that an extension of copyright privileges to works of street art is likely to jeopardize the counter-cultural and rebellious nature of this urban art kind (Section 5).

Can there be improvised recipes? This paper argues that improvised recipes are possible. I call them instantaneous-recipes. They emerge at the same instant where a dish is also prepared. The improvisational freedom of instantaneous-recipes is displayed in the spontaneity of using what is available in terms of ingredients, tools, utensils, and techniques. Similar to what graffiti writers do while tagging – that is, leaving their signatures on – a wall or the side of a train car, in creating their signature dishes, improvisers of the kitchen are forced to adapt on the spot to changing contextual conditions just like a missing or newly available ingredient, a technical failure, or a mistake. Analogously to tags, improvised recipes are formally imperfect: they do not comply with established ones and are often rough, unpolished, broken, and disordered. But their imperfections are not aesthetic flaws, but merits. Imperfectionism in cooking, as I call the view rejecting the idea that only perfect instantiations of pre-existing recipes afford positive aesthetic experiences, is linked with three values: aesthetic, humanistic, and sustainable. By bringing imperfect features within the domain of gastronomic appreciation, instantaneous-recipes broaden the range of our aesthetic palette, while also reminding us of our finitude as humans. By encouraging creative uses of available ingredients and leftovers, improvisation in the kitchen also embodies a more sustainable approach to food waste.

Tom Finkelpearl is a unique figure in contemporary art. He is the executive director of the Queens Museum of Art. However, for decades, he has been a passionate advocate of unconventional artistic practices that have been flourishing outside the boundaries of the mainstream circuit of museums, biennales, art fairs, galleries, and art schools. In recognition of his involvement in promoting nontraditional forms of art, Public Art Dialogue, one of the most important associations devoted to public art, has recently awarded Finkelpearl their 2015 prize. What We Made follows in the footsteps of Finkelpearl’s previous book, Dialogues in Public Art. With that book, Finkelpearl contributed to..

Street art and graffiti are on the rise and their problematic relationship with the law is becoming an increasingly pressing issue. This paper considers a series of high profile street art controversies involving famous street artists Banksy and Alice Pasquini as cases studies for illuminating such a relationship. First, by discussing the “Banksy’s Law” – a “law” protecting street artworks in the style of Banksy while condemning graffiti – and its perceived arbitrariness, I investigate what I call the structural differences between aesthetic and legal judgments. While not denying some continuity in reasoning about the law and the arts, I argue that legal judgments possess a degree of formality that cannot be found in their aesthetic counterpart. Second, in expanding my discussion, I also maintain that aesthetic considerations should not function as overriding reasons in legal determinations. By being illegal, many street artworks and graffiti acquire subversive power. If deprived of the possibility of challenging the law because of their aesthetic value, these art forms would lose much of their political value. And, more generally, a world where artworks cannot challenge the law is a world where the arts are rather superficial forms of entertainment.