For my blog entry this week, I chose to do the second prompt given. We were asked to choose a type of art and explain how an anthropologist might undertake the study of its form and substance. As I was sitting in class wondering what I should work with on the prompt, I thought about graffiti. Graffiti is one of those subjects that are very controversial, some people find it offending.. but at the same time more and more of us are seeing graffiti as a work of art.
If you look at the art of Banksy, a street artist that originated in London but was quickly well known, you'll see that not only is his art asthetically pleasing, but it also has meaning behind it.
Banksys art is also very interesting because Banksy has never really been seen or discovered, therefore, he has no background to us. Banksy can basically touch on every subject without complete offense to a certain culture or issue personally I believe that thats what pulls people to his art.
        In all three pictures I posted below, Banksy is making quite the political statement, the first about war and the other two about industrialization. In is art, Banksy makes it very clear that he is opposed to both of these things, such that even people who don't like street art or are not educated in the matter still find it meaningful or aesthetically pleasing.
I believe for an anthropologist to be able to undertake the study of its form and substance they would first have to find out exactly what is being communicated. Where his art is placed and what message it is meant to bring is a huge factor in determining how dense the substance of the art is. As for the form, and how sensually pleasing it is, they would have to see how the public reacts to it.
I completely agree with Layton that “there are two different approaches to the definition of art” and that if you look at a piece of art you should really be able to find it both aesthetically pleasing and meaningful.