I have photographed this in the summer at the ferry, at Szentendre.
For me this environment did not make sense, as I dont' live there, I don't know the energies, stories, problems that belong there, but also this is not a really political street art ... and the neighborhood is also much less neglected as the 7th district where most of the street art I know is concentrated.
I got a book in Instant last week, the title of which is "concrete and me //// beton és én" it is Published by the "Public art Alapítvány"
The book is similar to most of the 'street art documentations" - many photos and little text. This is of course a problem, because it is impossible to photo the street art ... On the other hand, sometimes, if you photograph somehting, it looks like art - though the frame, and the context.
There is a one page introduction to the little booklet about some Hungarian public art. (published in 2008) It says the following at some point:
"In the beginning of the 90s first appeared the American style of graffiti in the region. It also brought the rebellion as a brand (nowadays it is used in advertisement or as decoration of clubs). A new conservative and hierarchical order was built up in this subculture in these years as well, however, the artists invited to this exhibition try to neglect it. Earlier it was important that this drawings were created in places that could be seen by many people. Most of the artists were disappointed in this subculture therefore they started to discover the less frequented parts of the cities. At the end they found these abandoned industrial sites"
I dont quite understand the conservative hierarchy of this subculture and why these artists are disappointed ... I do feel it is a problem, that the very popular Szimpla interieur looks "street artish" and underground, even though from the opening of the place (on its ucrrent site) it had little to do with underground movements. Now, it is and looks as pure business enterprise. In the time when it was etablished in Kazinczy street it really belonged to a smaller circle of people, and was in a way revolutionary, today it is a touristy thing. On the other hand I am still happier if this kind of styles are spreading than if people would wanna just belong to posh bars ...
I was sad to read this part in this booklet, and also perplexed. I studied "Public art" on university, and there was actually one statement of our teacher that was disturbing and compelling at the same time. She tried to state that Street art is almost always a reaction to something LOCAL, for instance if there is a house that is very neglected, street artists try to warn the people that something is going wrong here, same with dogshit, etc. But if they move to locations where noone can see them, they basically agree that they do not have an influence, which I think is wrong.
I think that there are problems with "this subculture", but there are many layers of this: the problem that "street art is used for ads" and that street art becomes club decioation can be derived from two things:
1.) the "underground" becomes "overground" / something similar to the conflict between "high" and "low" culture
2.) capitalists use the "independent" (or anti-capitalist?) forms
I feel that for the artists to escape to neglected places is as resignated reaction as for the members of "this subculture" just to immerse in hedonism and not really care about their environment...
By the way going through the photos these artist look more conservative that those "perverted collegues" in the Szimpla, and they dont try to state any political claims.
According to the editors view, location of the street art only influences the visual effect, but not the meaning of the Public art. There is only the name of the artists next to the photos, and an abbreviation of the country of origin, but we are not informed about the actual locations of the respective paintings, drawings. This is for me the same "aestehticisation" of street art, as the trendy bars are taking its language and using it for them.
