This book presents a classification system for graffiti art styles that reflects the expertise of graffiti writers and the work of art historian Erwin Panofsky. Based on Panofsky's theories of iconographical analysis, the classification model is designed to identify the style of a graffiti art piece through its visual characteristics. Tested by image cataloguers in archives, libraries, and museums, the system assists information professionals in identifying the iconic styles of graffiti art pieces. It also demonstrates the power of Panofsky's theories to provide access to non-representational or abstract art images. The result is a new paradigm for Panofsky's theories that challenges the assumptions of traditional models. This innovative book is a valuable resource for anyone who wants to learn more about graffiti art and for information professionals concerned with both the practical and intellectual issues surrounding image access.
The usual dull text from an academic paper pusher that needs to climb the rungs to the better governmental pension plan. A spineless text that would not state "Graffiti is X", but rather waste a paragraph how or what New York Times said. Of course, the author of the New York Times is not worthy enough to embellish such a worthy academic text. And when Gottlieb takes a step to make something resembling a statement, it's an idiotic:
> Most people do not equate graffiti with art, much less with art that can bring thousands of dollars at auction.
Maybe those most people would have a way better idea of what Graffiti is.
I love the fact that there exists some rubric to determine the content and style of graffiti, and this book attempts to further that. I read this with an eye towards the academic, and it was as dry as academic texts can get. What's weird is how one can try to do this without the benefit of actual PICTURES of the work. She explains why, but the loss of such is insurmountable.