Site Specificity

     In conjunction with this class, I am also taking Philosophy of Art.  In that class, we covered Street Art at about the same time as we covered Street Art.  In that class we discussed site specificity and how and if that challenges the art autonomy theory.
     First off, we had to define what street art is.  The first idea was that a work of art is street art if, and only if, it is made in the street.  This doesn't work because then that would have to include any art that happens to be in the street.  This include those who set up an easel and canvas on sidewalks as well as art shows.  Nicholas Riggle proposes a far more acceptable definition: A work of art is street art if, and only if, its material use of the street is internal to its meaning.  I like this definition as it clearly defines that in order for a work of art to be street art, the site at which it has been placed in is also part of the meaning of the work.  Banksy has placed many works in places where what the meaning of that work is correlates with the surrounding area.  In the case where he painted what looks like a hole to paradise in the West Bank wall is both beautiful on its own and also a political statement.
     With regards to one of my images in my blog, "The World is Going Down the Drain," the use of the storm drain is internal to the meaning as the world is depicted as flowing down into it.  If this piece was taken and painted onto a canvas and placed within MOMA, it would would most likely be interpreted as though the world was melting and the true meaning of the work would be lost.  So, the site in which a work of street art is placed is both intentional and internal to the meaning of the work.