I'm not arguing for or against that - I'm just stating a fact (there's a lot of pichação in São Paulo) and an opinion (I find it extremely ugly, even if I do like grafitti, including the more artistic and colorful tags)
> to separate it from grafitti (which evokes some form of art)
You seemed to be implying pixo is not art tho. Funny thing is, American use of the world graffiti was precisely to deride stuff that they didn't consider 'urban/street art'. Just some youth made graffiti tags...
I guess its because in context I meant to separate Art (as is human search for meaning and expression not for the purposes of survival and reproduction) from art (as in technically developed and aesthetically pleasing)
Pixação may be Art, but it is ugly (which is subjective)
I don't see how the distinction adds any value to the conversation. Besides, if you think ugliness is subjective, you should say you consider pixo ugly, not that it is. This whole 'capitalized concept' is sounds very pretentious to me. Pixo is art, you may not like it, but there certainly is technical development built into it and some people find it pleasing or it wouldn't exist. Insisting in keeping it out of some definition of art just seems to me like a way to deride it in a way that you can justify intellectually. I don't like it. I find it very ugly. But I don't feel the need to create some art category it doesn't belong to in order to justify my opinion.
Western modern culture has this nihilistic stroke of loving everything that is ugly and decadent.
For some unknown reasons, a certain segment of the petit bourgeoisie became convinced that is some sort of being highly sophisticated and cultured to pretend to love this kind of garbage.
And the funniest thing is that the conservative right calls this "cultural-marxism", when it is obvious to everyone who has ever read Marx seriously that he would probably abhor this kind of stuff.
Living in the late stages of capitalism is funny like that.
